Re: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11: (with COMMENT)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Alvaro,

On 20/10/20 15:34, Alvaro Retana wrote:
[....]
>>> Please clarify the text one way or the other: by eliminating "examples"
>>> from §3.3, or removing the text in parenthesis in §3.4.
>>
>> How about changing that paragraph as:
>>
>> OLD:
>> 6. New temporary addresses MUST be created by appending a randomized
>> interface identifier (generated as described in Section 3.3 of
>> this document) to the prefix that was received.
>>
>> NEW:
>> 6. New temporary addresses MUST be created by appending a randomized
>> interface identifier to the prefix that was received. The
>> randomized interface identifier MUST comply with the design
>> guidelines from Section 3.1. Section 3.3 specify some example
>> algorithms that comply with the aforementioned design goals.
> 
> 
> I'm ok with this suggestion, except for the "MUST comply with the
> design guidelines from Section 3.1" part.  There's no interoperability
> required to justify normatively pointing at §3.1, most of the bullets
> there don't apply to the generation of random IIDs, and I don't see a
> strong reference to §3.1 anywhere else in the text.
> 
> I would be very happy by simply changing that second "MUST" to "must".
> 
> Having said that, my comment was non-blocking, so I trust you and the
> Responsible AD to make the right decision.

Ok. Question for Erik: which of the three proposed changes (or Alvaro's 
suggested s/MUST/must/) would be best for you?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492