IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-farmer-6man-exceptions-64-05.txt

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 07 August 2018 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
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 D40C9131102 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 nFAtY-ty6UA6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-f45.google.com (mail-lf1-f45.google.com [209.85.167.45]) (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 67BE91310F4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-f45.google.com with SMTP id j8-v6so177169lfb.4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XwefR8Nl90wYFlhMkHMMbPg93bloAkUefuzZtYxmiyg=; b=d30wwzPHbu4Jbd9r/s0Cxvp1ilRe8Qnv1vzKplnHhLJIVJEIzP2UYKgZfiJdI3mOTQ c/P/KxnDTxwDwp//pHmgFchemeCQ77kJY+KghUKcMuR2+b3GOdahOBCKtFmlPzSyOoym VSfTANkQI80b+nItYurDG7gRMvspdvUwj8nBX8c4hVWia6fFYvbsPEN3YcBLdVpBGLg8 QHk4CMMGO6eM4eJnjdK272tSaGin0jE7/9xrBWVckWle084GEtQvbr/k8I0eNb69Z6tZ 2zLJQK9G9h71SaroesPYULpBuxf4Bn47lRJg8u73uCl+OSvUcyoBNikXttVMLL6CMAjC Pk7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlH8qtQZc61K1aLkr5lPtatMLz0Ht4O7BGKdpesw7who3iE44dYK tUWE7ve0D4yiHoG1oCyetRTO7YWkWX9RM84W9Qs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPxTut0b8hifb/fjZe/EPETnUTdGzyrCsGefTIiKLg43IR4k6AkEjr9wrAsd2HjxzYI5NswQp0FeMt9S88Dz0y8=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:5418:: with SMTP id i24-v6mr162505lfb.34.1533681032538; Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153357039509.26798.8871624868471873730.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau25-4QqXJa+6H3O2iajnDs7GbOtW8hifw4-2Dt5r1Ufvg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau25-4QqXJa+6H3O2iajnDs7GbOtW8hifw4-2Dt5r1Ufvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:30:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqcKnkaGWKE9Biq-x3V4uz521KoeLWFbgp3x=cr==GJ0sA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-farmer-6man-exceptions-64-05.txt
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Cc: IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000024b2ea0572dff161"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TTykhguI09jtg7gXWjE-ByehW68>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 22:30:36 -0000

>> A new version of I-D, draft-farmer-6man-exceptions-64-05.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by David Farmer and posted to the
>> IETF repository.

I'd like to be sure about the high level intent of this document
before discussing specific details.  Am I correct that the plan is
to substitute this doc for the following paragraph of Section 2.4.1 of
draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09...

   Interface Identifiers are 64 bit long except [...]

... so that rfc4291bis can move forward to IS without controversy?

If this is correct, then does Section 2.5 of
draft-farmer-6man-exceptions-64-05 now mean that a new IPv6 link-type
specific document can define a non-64-bit IID length just "when
justified"?  Or, should farmer-6man-exceptions-64 be still interpreted
as a new link-type document cannot define a non-64-bit IID length
without being inconsistent with farmer-6man-exceptions-64 itself and
therefore should require an update to it (just like a new link-type
doc would have to update RFC4291 to define a non-64-bit IID today)?

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email