Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5952 (2872)

[Masanobu Kawashima <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard,

Thank you for your report.
I think this is better discussed in 6man.

But I think it is not an error.
Section 5 describes "Embedded IPv4 Addresses" for mixed notation.
IPv6 unspecified address and IPv6 loopback address are out of scope.

Moreover, the 80-bit all-zeros prefix is not "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address".
We should not use the 80-bit all-zeros prefix to identify embedded IPv4 addresses.

I didn't understand what you mean.
Please describe more detail.

Regards,
Masanobu


>
>The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5952,
>"A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation".
>
>--------------------------------------
>You may review the report below and at:
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5952&eid=2872
>
>--------------------------------------
>Type: Technical
>Reported by: Richard J. Smith <[e-mail]>
>
>Section: 5
>
>Original Text
>-------------
>For these addresses, mixed notation is RECOMMENDED if the following condition is met: the address can be distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits solely from the address field through the use of a well-known prefix.
>
>
>Corrected Text
>--------------
>For these addresses, mixed notation is RECOMMENDED if the following conditions are met: the address can be distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits solely from the address field through the use of a well-known prefix, and the entire address is not either the unspecified IPv6 address "::" or the loopback IPv6 address "::1".
>
>
>Notes
>-----
>RFC-4291 defines the 80-bit all-zeros prefix as indicating an "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address". Without further clarification in section 5 of RFC-5952, the recommended formatting of the IPv6 unspecified address would be "::0.0.0.0", and the recommended formatting of the IPv6 loopback address would be "::0.0.0.1". Neither of these recommended representations is desirable.
>
>Instructions:
>-------------
>This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
>
>--------------------------------------
>RFC5952 (draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-07)
>--------------------------------------
>Title               : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
>Publication Date    : August 2010
>Author(s)           : S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima
>Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>Source              : IPv6 Maintenance
>Area                : Internet
>Stream              : IETF
>Verifying Party     : IESG

¢(._.)
========================================
 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.               
 Product Development Department         
 Masanobu Kawashima                     
 [e-mail]               
 http://www.necat.co.jp/                
========================================