Re: Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: (with DISCUSS)

[Joel Jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

I can live with that, thanks.

Rfc editor note that does that is sufficient. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 17, 2013, at 11:12, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 17/12/2013 21:14, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> So I'm 100% in favor of the goal if this draft however:
>> 
>>  Their aim is to reduce confusion
>>   while retaining the useful aspects of the "u" and "g" bits in IIDs.
>> 
>> If they're now opaque then their useful attributes is that they are two
>> bits. the only way to know with any degree of certainty if an ip address
>> is derived from a mac address if if you have an L2 adjacency with the
>> device or have insight into how it was provisioned.
>> 
>> The text does not really mollify me with respect to retaining "useful"
>> aspects of the u and g bits.
> 
> Yes, you're right; I think that phrase was written very early in the
> life of the draft, when it seemed like a reasonable statement. After
> several attempts at improving the sentence, I think the best solution
> is to delete it, so the start of Section 5 would simply be:
> 
>   This section describes clarifications to the IPv6 specifications that
>   result from the above discussion.
> 
>     Brian
>