Re: [homenet] I-D.ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment (RFC 4193 conformance)

This makes me feel a lot better. Thanks.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr>
wrote:

> Hello Brian and James,
>
> Thanks for the heads up. CANs will be replaced in next version.
>
> So I’m clarifying the two first points in 4.3
>
>    o  It can be delegated by a service provider (DHCPv6 PD, 6rd
>       [RFC5969], etc..).
>
>    o  It can be provisioned by an administrative authority (user
>       configuration, netconf [RFC6241], etc... ).
>
> And changing the last paragraph of the ULA generation section.
>
>    Note as well that this section doesn't prevent multiple ULA prefixes
>    from existing simultaneously.  ULA prefixes may be provided by
>    different means, as specified in Section 4.3.  Delegated prefixes
>    that are delegated by a service provider or provisioned by an
>    authority differ from 'spontaneously' generated prefixes.  They MUST
>    NOT be withdrawn if another ULA delegated prefix is observed.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Pierre
>
>
> Le 9 oct. 2014 à 22:49, James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> But I’m going to change it and making it more clear that authorities can
>> provide their own prefixes. Even ULAs.
>>
>
> Thanks! I'm very pleased to see this agreement.
>
>
> --
> james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
> Nest Labs, Communications Engineering
>  _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
>
>

-- 
james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering