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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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