IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> (Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers) to Proposed Standard

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 15 November 2016 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D07B129A39; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:58:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=tx0bITB2; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ADfte68F
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aqAdzYlA94aE; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:58:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F15D51294E3; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C6A2081A; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:58:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:58:17 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=RvtvCJgyrqiPKeI5jMDcCbKxErc=; b=tx0bIT B2CLqdyT5xIjgWxJWGrO7LMyYnx10pvxWgsxR/n4KHOTRTZ3lmAkfWlUBkIdpC7F LIvtNW1H06E3tXRMDs0BgQlVfsfHEzMmSSHlNSrf/2NCvnHNyYgzad0jdrTySWFk 0WfvCCOGrXenMsdo2MODmRC4jR/OJPZW4PIVo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=RvtvCJgyrqiPKe I5jMDcCbKxErc=; b=ADfte68FVa630swixBfEyJL5w+nyVr2w/m/KPpwZ/xQcBQ NBaAQABlG9YOyfJahbbu16IKVW6QDzhWn1fRJzbCrvN+QHABc8SbPYFib64aE6U2 i2+648gMSoJi/3dxqOFmvQbrIvU0UQTgO2vKqpvRLYdyFfXHfLrpNY62RUohA=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:GcAqWMorjX_mAjFiK5Lo3CLsaTjPTXoRL8x0JpzTXWjkDFErHHSexg>
X-Sasl-enc: omFN6gS3U+0urEMT3/XJcX4jQtWf7xY6RJGbQOO7oTdX 1479196696
Received: from [10.24.8.140] (unknown [128.107.241.187]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5D9337E427; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:58:15 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EBCA3FCA-7450-4487-87BB-D9E6E1FA244C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> (Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers) to Proposed Standard
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr25zv1AQfNtEX-EnShU900WRNLhPF4X2SrF4gQFp0actw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:58:12 +0900
Message-Id: <AD56502B-7533-41D1-AD91-1BF6114B3032@cooperw.in>
References: <147917959004.8493.15676171079880753223.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr25zv1AQfNtEX-EnShU900WRNLhPF4X2SrF4gQFp0actw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EZHAYyHEtzfyBSvT5RAEbfaciHE>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-default-iids@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:58:19 -0000

Hi Lorenzo,

> On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:44 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org <mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org>> wrote:
> It formally updates RFC2464, RFC2467,
>    RFC2470, RFC2491, RFC2492, RFC2497, RFC2590, RFC3146, RFC3572,
>    RFC4291, RFC4338, RFC4391, RFC5072, and RFC5121.
> 
> Does this document need to be a formal update to those RFCs? After all the issues were resolved, the only remaining text that references those RFCs is:
> 
>    In particular,
>    this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs with
>    the schemes specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], [RFC2470], [RFC2491],
>    [RFC2492], [RFC2497], [RFC2590], [RFC3146], [RFC3572], [RFC4338],
>    [RFC4391], [RFC5121], and [RFC5072].
> 
> Does that require a formal update?

I think so. If the documents listed were being written from scratch today, I think they would contain the recommendation quoted above. That seems to align with the definition of “Updates” given in RFC 2223.

One thing we could do is add a note about why this document updates the documents listed above, taking the recommendation from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00>.

Alissa

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email