Re: past IAB statement about IPv6 Addressing Architecture
David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 17 March 2014 04:27 UTC
Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D017A1A0386 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nG12xkxGcjQq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs-a.tc.umn.edu (vs-a.tc.umn.edu [134.84.135.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96661A0385 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by vs-a.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:27:06 -0500 (CDT)
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170] #+LO+TS+TR
X-Umn-Classification: local
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id rd18so4935268iec.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L26rI9bPRzpVWx4yypYJx3K97yKDv/gyZPbl0FUdyW4=; b=haQJSjJ/cIB1i+rNX38ufp2rHvZpL21UXzvc/ufBkxtWxS6XbMvcXWEH+GMECX/Iro 5JcxvapAJf8wn35J3s2wqBqejCD0csn6fUKCATH3SF2Fre79T9F1HGd9iZCxDWNOpXnz Kr52YJzb2TRHVEBmyHsxDSH5UmA96yZlB9+r3sRmzwWY0HDPr/WV8XU7CjlGFz9D+cjq aUVSr0FplLMyasAlvWX8l2jx2927S6URd10b/fF1xKqUyeEDhyyIICXUrU0m9WrAifgg pdS7WPPNhvr9sN6tsIaC3xhXm5+11TCY+2nmm5enLCIRMsCTQ8P/mW0TRkdq0ijYXKaI OAOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZg1RY92NihGRrJI2yGkV9Ffr38GRCoXRPoArtqjNvYLDZmZtU6C3CGrOMTDq3a64MQ3it/6/xeqAh4mftYFuN5MKOOBbKl3cfCRROPTg2q92vRYwZxgAl32hAhwL5uvVS/0Kf
X-Received: by 10.50.92.102 with SMTP id cl6mr10747371igb.44.1395030426000; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.92.102 with SMTP id cl6mr10747361igb.44.1395030425843; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vpn0-477.vpn.umn.edu (vpn0-477.vpn.umn.edu. [134.84.1.221]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jy4sm13990340igb.17.2014.03.16.21.27.03 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53267996.70603@umn.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:27:02 -0500
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: past IAB statement about IPv6 Addressing Architecture
References: <AD2DB85A-F6DA-467B-AD91-64C9A6E4AD0E@gmail.com> <5321EEDB.1070505@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5321EEDB.1070505@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/BmE4Giy-EeM2P5U-pUNR4nu2P5w
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:27:19 -0000
On 3/13/14, 12:46 , Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Ran, > > On 14/03/2014 05:15, RJ Atkinson wrote: >> <http://www.iab.org/appeals/2003-2/iab-response-to-appeal-against-iesg-action-raised-by-mr-r-elz-appeal-text-february-2003/> >> ... >> Quoting from part of that IAB statement, specifically from Section 2.3: >>> d) We recommend that, as an update to this document, and via a recommendation >>> to the IESG, that the IPv6 Working Group uses clearer specification language >>> as per RFC-2026 and RFC-2119 to describe the requirement for a 64-bit >>> Interface-ID in IPv6 unicast addresses not starting with binary 000. > > The language in the addressing architecture is very explicit on this, > and has been since RFC 3513 (April 2003). Furethermore, the explicit > language is in the archived version of draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt > which is *earlier* than the mysterious version 11 mentioned in > kre's appeal. So I find this part of the appeal mysterious. I'm sure this is an unadvisable string to pull on, BUT. 1. RFC2373 had a RFC2119 reference. 2. RFC2373 has the text "The format prefixes 001 through 111, except for Multicast Addresses (1111 1111), are all required to have to have 64-bit interface identifiers..." 3. For some reason unknown to me; In draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-03 the reference to RFC2119 was dropped. 3. The text "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long..." is introduced in draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-06, this is essentially equivalent to the text in #2 4. RFC3513 and RFC4291 have NO reference to to RFC2119 and the text "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long..." -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================
- past IAB statement about IPv6 Addressing Architec… RJ Atkinson
- Re: past IAB statement about IPv6 Addressing Arch… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: past IAB statement about IPv6 Addressing Arch… David Farmer
- Re: past IAB statement about IPv6 Addressing Arch… Brian E Carpenter