Thank you for this document.
I'm afraid that I don't understand the situation after it is published as
an
RFC. It claims to obsolete RFC 3825, but a lot of the text refers to
things
like...
This document defines the Ver field for the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6
options. New values for the Ver field are assigned through
"Standards Action" [RFC5226]. Initial values are as follows:
0: DHCPv4 Implementations conforming to [RFC3825]
1: Implementations of this specification (for both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6)
This is not possible because this document obsoletes RFC 3825, so there
cannot
be conformance to the RFC any more!
I think a little time should be spent re-working the text around
references to
RFC 3825. Either 3825 is being made historic, or this document is
replacing
(obsoleting) 3825 and becomes the full (self-contained) reference for
implementations. In fact (as is stated in seciton 2.2)...
This specification defines the behavior of
version 0 (originally specified in [RFC3825]) as well as
version 1.
...so you don't need to reference 3825, and can just get on with the
specification of the two versions.
--
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Reporter: bernard_aboba@… | Owner: bernard_aboba@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: draft-ietf-geopriv-3825bis
Component: rfc3825bis | Version: 1.0
Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords:
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/45>
geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
