Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19EA1294AC for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:11:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com 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 Yp6Gl5yq08AR for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:11:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 376C112949E for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:11:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id t8so85707860vke.3 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:11:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lUrze+uytOMBfoHTzFsrA7GgY25FV/PmUYyNwynzRyg=; b=o24w2cai8FZUlGygQUMe2Hcx7dHV89ukjo+6+4yrowyaisPlguBdaaVNovTD2Nh9aS f9XlXFe3VH7dButhXht1U/lR6Ny2o3SNmIWWvFSakXKEreXqfb+C4cMVgrrtUtBebo11 ftvxsEzbE1ayLBAwTPeOHkUcKYAMTouc+pvv7d5HHF5DVFy7J8xtGNdyK8kf8E53EO0a RURohq7WSzDaOas1TvlI0G12aBFe2dkhBIWoKIp83sp2fZu69n6V9d97u6UInRWzjwSQ /LBi1MXEwJFpGjs9Dz43qE7k5gYXJOBE/bxZZI4JY+GcNoI/EL/lxu9ZLRZcO/UAJNyy WT7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lUrze+uytOMBfoHTzFsrA7GgY25FV/PmUYyNwynzRyg=; b=q0jyj9r6Evlzhe0GRnurMvIZtNINiNHftRz9kymT1+PMhvPMa/CmBTqoQh21tMrCqW msaCR1M87Msc+2EeBmURvv3LUpJD/E6PtOHG6ZjjKNfUdYzpIdftEA5BP5In8sEqKwfb 41WBZRLQp/y894xiK2ztw8+xi+ZArwf+uKnpjtEAh54JEIerqi3VF37Tai9p8VSCrYkC KFCDCFkg4giB4WeCjfem5A/MsR3aljuI2Y/xOjaMidkxjF6M4oHRkKJ1jBdL9kDC6zxS PTWdgIE1ZHH4dw5x25pMV3rq3AkwoB4CzcRo8xJQqx2gCet11+7oTuWaHdvWH0YLx9zO RnUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIR063Kl14PssVYmX0vLYcaMcGRKC7LFJC/atj0jxTj0gKdiauQ7FAgHMOYCQkEwZh0cfXGxW2EpUcBILKy X-Received: by 10.31.248.193 with SMTP id w184mr13006898vkh.10.1485159074028; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:11:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:10:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7a46b4c8-9dab-8da5-1d60-eaae0910d2af@si6networks.com> References: <2a65f642-e339-8bb1-229a-be589d818635@si6networks.com> <7a46b4c8-9dab-8da5-1d60-eaae0910d2af@si6networks.com> From: Lorenzo Colitti Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:10:53 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06: RFC4941 and comment on stable addresses To: Fernando Gont Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c14bd2a0b918e0546be8bad Archived-At: Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@tools.ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:11:17 -0000 --94eb2c14bd2a0b918e0546be8bad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > This document is a bis document, which is not expected to change > anything, right? > And it doesn't. Whether RFC 4941 is cited in this document or not doesn't change the normative effects of this document, since it's only provided as an example. > RFC4291 was only about stable addresses. Hence referencing temporary > addresses can be misleading. For instance, RFC4291 does 4291 does not > contain any references to RFC3041. > RFC 4291 is not just about stable addresses, it's about all addresses (multicast, unicast, stable, unstable, manual, autoconfigured, random, ...). It says that "all unicast addresses [...][are] constructed in modified EUI-64 format". That includes RFC 4941 privacy addresses, which are in modified EUI-64 format (they set bit 6 to 0). --94eb2c14bd2a0b918e0546be8bad Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com&= gt; wrote:
This= document is a bis document, which is not expected to change
anything, right?

And it doesn't. Wh= ether RFC 4941 is cited in this document or not doesn't change the norm= ative effects of this document, since it's only provided as an example.=
=C2=A0
RF= C4291 was only about stable addresses. Hence referencing temporary
addresses can be misleading. For instance, RFC4291 does 4291 does not
contain any references to RFC3041.

RFC = 4291 is not just about stable addresses, it's about all addresses (mult= icast, unicast, stable, unstable, manual, autoconfigured, random, ...). It = says that "all unicast addresses [...][are] constructed in modified EU= I-64 format". That includes RFC 4941 privacy addresses, which are in m= odified EUI-64 format (they set bit 6 to 0).
--94eb2c14bd2a0b918e0546be8bad--