Re: [Int-area] WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-04

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Donald,

> On May 9, 2023, at 6:37 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I generally support advancing this document, but I noticed an issue that should be resolved.
> >
> > In Section 2.2.1. "IPv6 Use of Modified EUI‑64 Identifiers”.    The contents is technically correct, but it should also mention that this type of IPv6 Interface Identifiers are no longer recommended.   See RFC8064 "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers”.   I think it would be better if text was added at the beginning of Section 2.2.1 that this approach is no longer recommended, include a reference to RFC8064, and say something that this is included for completeness (or similar wording).
> 
> Thanks for this cogent comment.
> 
> How about adding the following sentence as a new first paragraph in Section 2.2.1: "The approach described below for constructing IPv6 is now deprecated and the method specified in [RFC8064] is RECOMMENDED."

Yes, that is good.  Suggest s/constructing IPv6/constructing IPv6 Interface Identifiers/

> 
> Also changing the beginning of the following text as follows
> OLD
> UI‑64 identifiers are used to form the lower 64 bits of some
> NEW
> UI‑64 identifiers have been used to form the lower 64 bits of some

Good.  Similar change in Section 2.2 would also be good.

Bob




> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I generally support advancing this document, but I noticed an issue that should be resolved.
> 
> In Section 2.2.1. "IPv6 Use of Modified EUI‑64 Identifiers”.    The contents is technically correct, but it should also mention that this type of IPv6 Interface Identifiers are no longer recommended.   See RFC8064 "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers”.   I think it would be better if text was added at the beginning of Section 2.2.1 that this approach is no longer recommended, include a reference to RFC8064, and say something that this is included for completeness (or similar wording).
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> On May 4, 2023, at 11:17 PM, Wassim Haddad <wassim.haddad=[e-mail] <mailto:wassim.haddad=[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Intarea WG,
>> 
>> This email starts an Intarea WG Last Call on draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-04 (“IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters”).
>> 
>> A link to the draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis/>
>> 
>> Please respond to this email to support the documents and/or send comments by 05/20/2023.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Juan Carlos & Wassim
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>