Re: Sean Turner's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: (with COMMENT)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 12, 2013, at 21:03, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sean
> 
> On 13/12/2013 14:52, Sean Turner wrote:
>> Sean Turner has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: No Objection
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ug/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Just trying to get a couple of reviews in early:
>> 
>> 1) For the changes to s2.5.1 of RFC 4291 in s5, should it be:
>> 
>>  "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
>>    value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long. If derived
>>    from an IEEE MAC-layer address, they MUST be constructed in Modified
>>    EUI-64 format."
>> 
>> I.e., r/must/MUST?
> 
> RFC 4291 doesn't cite RFC 2119, so it seems logical that the updated
> text uses lower case. Otherwise, we'd also have to formally update
> 4291 with that citation too.
> 

Err yeah ;)

> I didn't see your point 2).

Yep only one point.

spt