Re: [Pppext] small draft to update iana rules in PPP BAP/BACP

[Ignacio Goyret <igoyret at alcatel-lucent.com>]

At 10:37 AM 9/3/2009 +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:

>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-arkko-pppext-bap-ianafix-00.txt
>
>Comments appreciated. I promise that at least this draft is shorter and simpler than most others :-)

Hi Jari,
Just a couple of minor comments on the "PPP BAP Link Type" option.
It may be useful to IANA to mention that this is actually
a bit field and that each entry defines one bit.

Although RFC2125 allows defining more bits for this field,
the interoperability of such a choice would probably be questionable.
May be the text should include some sort of discouragement to
adding more bits beyond the defined ones.

Finally, the bit positions are opposite of the usual: bit 0 is
actually the low order bit. This is very confusing, but this is
also how it is in the original RFC. Too bad it wasn't fixed
back then.

Cheers,-Ignacio