RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

Suresh,

Thanks very much for the review. As per your feedback, here are the
changes we are making to the draft.

1. This sentence at the end of section 1 will be changed from:

[Finally, this document merely restates and clarifies [RFC4861].]

to  

[Finally, this document mainly restates and clarifies [RFC4861].]

2. Text of Bullet 3 in section 2 will change so that, as per your
request, we make it very explicit that this is a new rule. The old text
is shown below followed by new text.

       [On-link determination SHOULD NOT persist across IPv6 interface
       initializations.  Note that section 5.7 of [RFC4862] describes
       the use of stable storage for addresses acquired with stateless
       address autoconfiguration with a note that the Preferred and
       Valid Lifetimes must be retained if this approach is used.
       However no RFC suggests or recommends retaining the on-link
       prefixes.]

       [On-link determination SHOULD NOT persist across IPv6 interface
       initializations.  Note that this is a new rule specified by this
       document.  Further, section 5.7 of [RFC4862] describes the use of
       stable storage for addresses acquired with stateless address
       autoconfiguration with a note that the Preferred and Valid
       Lifetimes must be retained if this approach is used.  However no
       RFC suggests or recommends retaining the on-link prefixes.]

Regards.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:57 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org; i-d-announce@ietf.org; Erik Nordmark;
ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

Hi Hemant,
   I went through the document and it looks very good. There is just one
thing I would like to comment on.

* The document claims to only clarify RFC4861 but it overreaches a bit. 
If you look at section 2 bullet 3, this lays out a NEW rule for a host
to follow. This rule does not exist in RFC4861. I personally feel that
this rule is intuitive and desirable, but it is certainly not backward
compatible.

Cheers
Suresh

Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Could you please review this draft now that it's a 6man WG work item. 
> So far this version has taken care of comments on an earlier version 
> that the following folks reviewed.
> 
> Suresh Krishnan
> Jinmei Tatuya
> Thomas Narten
> Ralph Droms
> 
> Brian Carpenter sent us a private email on his review of this version.
> We have taken care of his review as follows. 
> 
> At the end of section 2, the following paragraph has been changed from
> 
> [This case is analogous to the behavior specified in the last 
> paragraph of section 7.2.2 of
> [RFC4861]: when address resolution fails, the host SHOULD send an 
> ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable indication as specified in [RFC4861].  
> The specified behavior MAY be extended to cover this case where 
> address resolution cannot be performed.]
> 
> to
> 
> [This case is specified in the last paragraph of section 4 of
> [RFC4943]: when there is no route to destination, the host should send

> an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable indication (for example, a locally 
> delivered error message) as specified in the Terminology section of 
> [RFC4861].]
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hemant
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:00 AM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the

> IETF.
> 
> 
> 	Title           : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between
> Links and Subnet Prefixes
> 	Author(s)       : H. Singh, et al.
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 8
> 	Date            : 2008-05-08
> 
> IPv6 specifies a model of a subnet that is different than the IPv4 
> subnet model.  The subtlety of the differences has resulted in 
> incorrect implementations that do not interoperate.  This document 
> spells out the most important difference; that an IPv6 address isn't 
> automatically associated with an IPv6 on-link prefix.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-
> 00
> .txt
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader 
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the 
> Internet-Draft.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------