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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Below...

On 19/02/2014 03:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 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?

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.

    Brian