IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
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 791C11294E3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:44:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.497 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 xkxlXAutF3FN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE01E129516 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id c20so133764573itb.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:44:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HOOoIYLDDZus95QwDJhKf7a6BNtOkATVXEbuAQastas=; b=Sgdk8LDL0Axy+v4KOihe0mjM9k03lCQsgR0sfJGF1u1FjP4j0L34gtPzO+KdLnnMni ST7lyy5wvDmd3hIj34HXfgOAmlpCxsbgZep7ooAf084s5HIN1NUt7ugVFysNVeT937+K wN9cpVUIlDe0Tv+jtBOjCMOQsYm7OX9KJTfOknyvnMGe5oL9WQtPXCVbbn/wdcuU6Ezo YsNPa2fuy4gsPre7BPpjNOhKLwsl4CeCnCQJYr5lMxI7uJzphomkuxmt1WJ8POANmmsB aTRiboFg9gwQVxGIQzAUOksJExcCow/a1m9LFQuBGdzl1PaSyamfjFt4hvzSbNbJ3P5T fplw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HOOoIYLDDZus95QwDJhKf7a6BNtOkATVXEbuAQastas=; b=k1pXXVDyzxecvNJikdSmjT9KILqUCRbNN0xXFbvtxvxQRbWQHLLtwQWmvbCh5Z6WYm zBpd5P5pu2pheprbgL8nA/xLAbqZwN7unedrTHEuHwa+KpbfdU3wvBsty/d7ExF1/wFE FhmrDLCLI2b4c94k2gyDd6axxmGmynrp/I4gM24tlanwkiv9oIWhMciNfyQvKIY2jloe lIK7LSFvZkIK2p/BcEuSVpNH9d8V3rpb9tmXbuUyb8Ivemw29Ys1QKKZ+AC4uFRSwsql lhaxF4VAaNsuEir7aovOATlovYjv2GhS+bMGR2gu6Hy60qeXHif/rKNi8tza8K1hyDeN GJqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvf7FifR4YmvRR2Jktq4dbDQAAZhUhg0/QqsZnFB8FMDCR4XjUCyCK79aVrInjuI4zeDRhzDpRaFfA+27grv
X-Received: by 10.107.48.134 with SMTP id w128mr37266103iow.226.1479195875087; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:44:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.102.37 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:44:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <147917959004.8493.15676171079880753223.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <147917959004.8493.15676171079880753223.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:44:04 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr25zv1AQfNtEX-EnShU900WRNLhPF4X2SrF4gQFp0actw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> (Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers) to Proposed Standard
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114448d4b0796105415220d3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zX9Qw_r1HzCKk3W_4C0vKwCUmck>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids@ietf.org, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@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 07:44:38 -0000

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM, The IESG <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?

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email