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

Ignacio,

Thanks for your review:

> 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.
>   

Yes -- I changed this in my copy of the draft.

> 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.
>   

Sounds reasonable. I have made some changes to make these clearer.

Jari

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext