IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9562 <draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis-14> for your review

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 17 April 2024 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD818C14F6B0; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8SWApPmJQWRx; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B04BC14F698; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8353898B; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id OyyltLWpWvPL; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:58:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F92A38988; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:58:21 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1713362301; bh=3azQuoRJqfosnAP+IyaHLk3Qi1L3gvBDk5YBDwACDao=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=nspEExihpcmWdrq1/XsfhaqE7om2E4gDzzM/z0PN7SbxysY2UqJcchxYWd/EMYWjD 1+wTSV7uxIwhuwaHauqgPECzZbzXXvkqTsfBfnhhLV51ZYMsl3IV9IImmasu0lpGLZ u1UKnpM+ZFZ84kWKviW/ImJaLfOG8dbFETrHjktj9FjfI7bVE6VbunnDj4pwemGDg5 S2r1SSCcWf0R2TE6DCLHj2BtVkS5Bq3JPvx7kxRoWk69jNdibHugq5p58U+rCI8yBP 9ylwyAdLfa2NA1JS4bwPdKYwbsZHRJGpLA5oSY9oD9wOkQpXL6ZymaRF69xSShoxe0 Y2Q7lA8yeE7qQ==
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0D683; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:58:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Kyzer Davis (kydavis)" <kydavis@cisco.com>
cc: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "brad@peabody.io" <brad@peabody.io>, "pjl7@uw.edu" <pjl7@uw.edu>, "uuidrev-ads@ietf.org" <uuidrev-ads@ietf.org>, "uuidrev-chairs@ietf.org" <uuidrev-chairs@ietf.org>, "superuser@gmail.com" <superuser@gmail.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB50296B688595F7253EEFC6A5BB082@PH0PR11MB5029.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20240412032834.406145BEB90@rfcpa.amsl.com> <PH0PR11MB50296B688595F7253EEFC6A5BB082@PH0PR11MB5029.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:58:21 -0400
Message-ID: <29993.1713362301@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/BZv9KJ5rjGZH9oMoyLEVXTKceQo>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9562 <draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis-14> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:58:29 -0000

Kyzer Davis (kydavis) <kydavis@cisco.com> wrote:
    > 17) <!--[rfced] In the following text, which meaning is correct?

    > Original:

    > After generating the 48 bit fully randomized node value, implementations MUST set the least significant bit of the first octet of the node ID set to 1.

    > Perhaps A (the least significant bit is set to 1):

    > After generating the 48-bit fully randomized node value, implementations MUST set the least significant bit of the first octet of the node ID to 1.

    > Perhaps B (the least significant bit is set to some value for the first octet of the node ID that is set to 1):

    > After generating the 48-bit fully randomized node value, implementations MUST set the least significant bit of the first octet of the node ID set to 1.
    -->

I can't see which choice you have made.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email