Re: RFC4941bis implementations

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Mark,

On 5/4/20 04:56, Mark Smith wrote:
[...]
>> 4941bis is for SLAAC. SLAAC uses 64 bit IIDs.
> 
> Thoroughly agree. When people want to support other length prefixes,
> and ignore the consequences, I'll point out those consequences.

That's certainly fine... just that such discussion doesn't need to be 
part of rfc4941bis ;-)



>> Note also the title change.
> 
> Does this mean that rfc4941bis doesn't apply to DHCPv6 IA_TAs?

Neither rfc4941bis nor RFC4941 apply to DHCPv6. -- title being 
"...Extensions for IPv6 SLAAC".



> If original RFC4941 is obsoleted by rfc4941bis, then I think that
> means that RFC8415 would now have an unresolved RFC4941 reference.

But that's not the way revisions work. -- the obsoleting document takes 
the references. Or, actually, more precisely, the obsoleted document 
remains the reference. But then you realize from the metadata that it 
has been obsoleted by another document, and thus read the obsoleting 
document instead.

(Note that, otherwise, the same would apply to all documents that 
reference e.g. RFC2460, that has now become obsoleted by RFC8200).


> Looking in the current dhc WG drafts, I can't see a DHCPv6 ID that
> would be the equivalent of what rfc4941bis is now becoming for SLAAC.

Neither you'll find a document that is the equivalent of what RFC7217 
became for SLAAC -- well, strictly speaking, you have RFC7943, but 
somehow (long story) it was published on the independent submissions 
track, rather than standards track.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492