RE: RFC 2460 issue

[Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.ca>]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Jari/John,
  That sounds fine but it is not just RFC 2460 that needs to be updated 
but perhaps many others. Off the top of my head I know that RFC3493 needs 
to be updated since the IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS socket option now accepts 0 as a 
valid hop count. I really do not understand what a hop count of 0 implies 
and why we should bother updating the RFCs.

Regards
Suresh

>Hi Jari,
>
>> Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> > Hi Alain,
>> > 	Since the hop limit is analogous to TTL in IPv4 the answer should 
>> > be no. But you will not find the answer in RFC 2460 as this was not 
>> > covered in RFC 791. This should be covered in the node requirements draft 
>> > (draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt) that John is editing. I 
>> > checked the draft but it did not have a section regarding this(analogous 
>> > to RFC 1122 section 3.2.1.7). Maybe this can be added to that draft. I am 
>> > curious as to why you would want to do that though.
>> 
>> I think we have agreed now that the node requirements document is
>> not a place to list all updates and deficiencies of existing RFCs --
>> those existing RFCs should be updated instead.
>
>I agree.
>
>John
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------