IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Technical Errata Reported] RFC7421 (5699)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 19 April 2019 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 3155412012D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 03:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 x_SAcacnBNvV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 03:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86516120130 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 03:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 15F05B808BE; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 03:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk, fgont@si6networks.com, jiangsheng@huawei.com, alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr, ayourtch@cisco.com, suresh@kaloom.com, evyncke@cisco.com, bob.hinden@gmail.com, otroan@employees.org
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7421 (5699)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190419102036.15F05B808BE@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 03:20:36 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HzHbbAqaa4qquKNjaYtv3Te7IJc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:20:42 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7421,
"Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5699

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Alexandre PETRESCU <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text
-------------
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                 B. Carpenter, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7421                             Univ. of Auckland
Category: Informational                                         T. Chown
ISSN: 2070-1721                                     Univ. of Southampton
                                                                 F. Gont
                                                  SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
                                                                S. Jiang
                                            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                             A. Petrescu
                                                               CEA, LIST
                                                          A. Yourtchenko
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            January 2015



Corrected Text
--------------
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                 B. Carpenter, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7421                             Univ. of Auckland
Category: Informational                                         T. Chown
ISSN: 2070-1721                                     Univ. of Southampton
                                                                 F. Gont
                                                  SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
                                                                S. Jiang
                                            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                          A. Yourtchenko
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            January 2015



Notes
-----
For some reason I got in the group, then participated positively to the discussion, and I let myself tempted to have my name up on the first page of a published RFC; but finally, after much time and reflexion, I think I do not agree with the effects of this RFC.

I do not agree that 64bit is a boundary.

Remark: you are asking Type 'Technical' or 'Editorial'; only one choice is possible.  I do not understand that.  My issue is both.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7421 (draft-ietf-6man-why64-08)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
Publication Date    : January 2015
Author(s)           : B. Carpenter, Ed., T. Chown, F. Gont, S. Jiang, A. Petrescu, A. Yourtchenko
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : IPv6 Maintenance
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email