Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-00.txt

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Wed, 19 February 2014 04:18 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160F31A0129 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:18:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 XEv9DLpLJfTL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:18:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ABE21A02FD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1400:a::12e3] by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <fernando@gont.com.ar>) id 1WFycD-00043I-1o; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 05:18:33 +0100
Message-ID: <53042ACA.1070103@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:53:46 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-00.txt
References: <20140124142141.1829.4747.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <530178E1.6010206@gmail.com> <53036867.10808@gont.com.ar> <5303D017.4070304@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5303D017.4070304@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UNbwHZTAv79ewXdeJVvrpQ22ezs
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:18:42 -0000

On 02/18/2014 06:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>>>    Nodes SHOULD NOT employ IPv6 address generation schemes that embed
>>>>    the underlying hardware address in the Interface Identifier.  Namely,
>>>>    nodes SHOULD NOT generate Interface Identifiers with the schemes
>>>>    specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], and [RFC2470].
>>> Is that list complete? In draft-carpenter-6man-why64 we have
>>> quite a list of IPv6-over-foo documents. It would perhaps be
>>> better to s/Namely/In particular/.
>>
>> The list might not be complete, since (so far) we haven't done an
>> exhaustive list of "IPv6 over foo" documents. That said, I think that
>> all such RFCs should be explicitly identified/listed, since they should
>> also be included in the "Updates: .." tag/metadata.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Sure, if you guarantee to find all of them. However, changing the
> text to "In particular" allows for the case that you miss one or two.

Makes sense. Will do.

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1