Roni, thanks for your review. Authors, thanks for your responses. I see IANA has received a suggested value. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:29 AM, Roni Even (A) <roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Med, > Thanks, I have no further comments > > Roni > > -----Original Message----- > From: mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 9:19 AM > To: Roni Even (A); Jaime Jiménez; Roni Even > Cc: draft-ietf-core-hop-limit.all@xxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; core@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05 > > Hi Roni, > > Sure. We can include a suggested value. > > Thank you for the review. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Roni Even (A) [mailto:roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx] Envoyé : lundi 23 >> septembre 2019 07:01 À : Jaime Jiménez; Roni Even Cc : >> draft-ietf-core-hop-limit.all@xxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; >> ietf@xxxxxxxx; core@xxxxxxxx Objet : RE: [Gen-art] Genart last call >> review of draft-ietf-core-hop- >> limit-05 >> >> Hi, >> I looked at section 5.4.6 and now I understand that the option is >> elective, non-repeatable and part of cache key. >> That will mean that the option number should have the two least >> significant bits as 0 and the next 3 bits some combination that is not >> all 1's, see also https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#section-5.10 >> >> I think you need to recommend a number for the option to IANA that >> will allow understanding of the characteristics of the option, IANA >> cannot allocate a random number to a new option >> >> Roni >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jaime >> Jiménez >> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 4:29 PM >> To: Roni Even >> Cc: draft-ietf-core-hop-limit.all@xxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; >> ietf@xxxxxxxx; core@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop- >> limit-05 >> >> Dear Roni, >> >> I believe the CUNR bit mask is defined in 5.4.6 >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#page-39 >> I assume it has to be added for every new option defined. >> >> Ciao! >> >> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 05:10:51AM -0700, Roni Even via Datatracker wrote: >>> Reviewer: Roni Even >>> Review result: Ready with Nits >>> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by >>> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like >>> any other last call comments. >>> >>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>> >>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-?? >>> Reviewer: Roni Even >>> Review Date: 2019-09-22 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-09-27 >>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >>> >>> Summary: >>> The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC with >>> nits >>> >>> Major issues: >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> >>> In section 6.2 I am not sure why you have CUNR , I did not see these >>> values in >>> RFC7252 section 12.2 >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#section-12.2 >>> or in the registry >>> >>> +--------+---+---+---+---+------------------+-----------+ >>> | Number | C | U | N | R | Name | Reference | >>> +--------+---+---+---+---+------------------+-----------+ >>> | TBA2 | | | | | Hop-Limit | [RFCXXXX] | >>> +--------+---+---+---+---+------------------+-----------+ >>> C=Critical, U=Unsafe, N=NoCacheKey, R=Repeatable >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
