Re: I-D Action: draft-jinmei-6man-prefix-clarify-00.txt

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Wed, 22 March 2017 17:50 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <b37878de-e7f6-10e9-71f9-a34e27f280f9@gmail.com>
References: <148943819693.20381.7869390660906713129@ietfa.amsl.com> <b37878de-e7f6-10e9-71f9-a34e27f280f9@gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:50:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfTwACf9bOjgvswC4BU1Urhpc_e8kJOX76Zj4X5ZQx_SA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-jinmei-6man-prefix-clarify-00.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Hn-EYsD9JgkcsU4JWC9x0-yuT4Q>
Precedence: list

At Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:22:32 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> I like this draft.
>
> I suggest mentioning https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8028 which
> describes a valid use of PIO with both L and A flags set to zero.
> This underlines the point that they are logically independent of each
> other.

Thanks for the feedback.  I'd note a prefix in PIA with both L and A
cleared is technically not in the scope of the draft (it's neither an
"on-link" nor "SLAAC subnet" prefix), but I see its relevance in terms
of how PIOs should be validated.  Right now I don't have a strong need
for revising the draft, but in case I update it I've added a note
about it to the local source of the document.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

Re: I-D Action: draft-jinmei-6man-prefix-clarify-… Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D Action: draft-jinmei-6man-prefix-clarify-… 神明達哉