Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08.txt

[Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>]

We have published -08 of the rfc6724 update, this fixes some
formatting and other typographical oversights
The following sections address comments from the lis (difft from -06
to -08 is the most useful comparison):
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&difftype=--html


Brief overview of the changes from -06:

Section 2:
Add terminology section and define known-local

Section 3:
Add section on elevating
upgrades the requirement in RFC 6724 for nodes to insert a higher
precedence entry in the policy table for observed ULA prefixes that
are known to be local, referred to in this document as "known-local"
ULAs, from a MAYto a SHOULD.

Section 4:
Changes the 6to4 prefix deprecation to match Teredo, adds further
clarity and reference to RFC6724 section 10.7

Section 5:
Add text to upgrade the requirement to automatically insert
known-local ULAs into a node's policy table from a MAY to a SHOULD.

Section 5.3
Further define insertion and removal parameters and requirements for
known-local ULA prefixes into table and associated values and label

Section 7.2:
Further clarify GUA-GUA preferred over ULA-ULA details

Section 7.3:
Further clarify ULA-ULA preferred over IPv4-IPv4 details

Section 8:
Housekeeping and formatting changes

Section 9.2:
Describe the new known-local interaction and how it addresses issues
with ULAs in global DNS



Further copy edit and housekeeping.

Thanks!