Re: [Geopriv] Short (5 page) ID to "update" RFC 3825

From: James M. Polk ^lt;jmpolk@cisco.com>
Date: Fri Apr 24 2009 - 13:53:38 EDT

At 02:19 AM 4/24/2009, Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk wrote:
>Looks good to me,

thanks

> and it's interesting to note that for .11y IEEE have
>already decided they only need a 3 bit datum field.

we didn't learn this fact until examining .11y for this ID

>One thing though - is there any reason we can't call RFC 3825 "version 0",
>so that the bit representation and the "human readable" version number
>don't have an ongoing off-by-one discrepancy?

we only made this change in the last pre-submission version.

WG consensus would have us change it back (easily)

>cheers,
>
>Ray

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:53:38 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 24 2009 - 13:56:01 EDT