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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Brian,

Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line...

On 02/16/2014 11:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think this is the right way to close off the EUI-64 debate.
> Just a couple of small comments:
> 
>>    NOTE: [RFC4291] defines the "Modified EUI-64 format" for Interface
>>    identifiers.  Appendix A of [RFC4291] then describes how to transform
>>    an IEEE EUI-64 identifier, or an IEEE 802 48-bit MAC address from
>>    which an EUI-64 identifier is derived, into an interface identifier
>>    in the Modified EUI-64 format.
> 
> I suggest adding something like
> 
>     [RFC7136] updates RFC 4291 to remove the requirement to use the
>     Modified EUI-64 format.

Will do (assuming no one opposes).


> (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7136#section-5)
> 
>>    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?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1