Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - options for fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 11/04/2019 à 13:38, Ole Troan a écrit :
>>>> I actually don't know if "this ipv6-over-80211ocb spec needs
>>>> to rely on the use of a non-0 value in the intermediate 54
>>>> bits", btw. If that's not the case, it's much safer and less
>>>> controversial to just not mention it (either in the form of "LL
>>>> prefix length" or more explicitly).  I guess that's also what
>>>> others are suggesting (and I agree with them in that sense).
>> 
>> There is the option of being silent about the prefix length of IPv6
>> LLs in the IPv6-over-OCB document.
>> 
>> There is the option of mentioning "fe80::/10", but with "Updates
>> 4291 section X" in the header of the 1st page.
>> 
>> There is the option of proving by implementation that fe80:1::1/32
>> on OCB is not harmful to others.
> 
> Two of these options will likely prohibit consensus being reqched on
> this document. I encourage you to carefully consider how to best
> spend your time and the time of the particpants in the involved set
> of working groups.

YEs, thank you for the advice Ole.  I need to take care how to spend my 
time.  Maybe try to avoid taking on directions that are known to be dead 
ended.

I read your message as a warning that I take seriously.  For that, I 
would like to ask you whether you make this suggestion as a WG Chair of 
6man WG?  Or as a contributor to other WGs?

Alex

> Ole
>