Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt
Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> Wed, 12 March 2014 14:37 UTC
Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
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 B7A131A0727 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 mMDUhfXz2SIf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754A71A0800 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ians-mbp.lan ([62.225.30.19]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LztD9-1XAzDt33vn-014z2t; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:36:50 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2D3153E5-7664-4110-87B0-CA1AB38DB17B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt
From: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140312142630.67060@gmx.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:36:49 +0100
Message-Id: <7B6D8276-CF89-4A0B-A2CC-1304763295B5@gmx.com>
References: <20140312142630.67060@gmx.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:wyf/rUk353slCdKOCBu/z6kLEqB9X/tSWAIjOGlIL0U43t3O7gs hbxmqTgRaB5LXfiNEw41KD7tar9xnMkWTU7OG6nTJaRm1m8I+5ZH21wm45g3hOP9c6ziWr5 jJ8E/y6kGA0odN5D5gWYj303HB9tLOUjxztOFanLkgh9f5y9NyNg2969buVZikevIry2hct RyOjLvYmchEztw/AN8jzQ==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jmN8Cf6AruJE-6yoZ7kvgzShBFY
Cc: 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, 12 Mar 2014 14:37:06 -0000
Posted to wrong list. Please ignore. Ian On 12 Mar 2014, at 15:26, ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote: > Hi, > > To try and move the discussion on the m/l forward, what about the following wording tweak?: > > Lightweight 4over6 is a solution designed specifically for complete independence between IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address with/without v4 address sharing. > > Let me know if you like it. > > Cheers, > Ian > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >> Sent: 03/12/14 09:05 AM >> To: jinmei@wide.ad.jp >> Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt >> >> Dear Tatuya, >> >> >> >> A new version including your proposed wording is available online: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03&url2=draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-04 >> >> >> >> Thanks for the review. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Med >> >> >> >> >-----Message d'origine----- >> >> >De : jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com [mailto:jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com] De la part >> >> >de ???? >> >> >Envoyé : mercredi 26 février 2014 18:32 >> >> >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN >> >> >Cc : ipv6@ietf.org >> >> >Objet : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03.txt >> >> > >> >> >Sorry for the delayed response, I've been effectively offline for a >> >> >while. >> >> > >> >> >At Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:59:41 +0100, >> >> ><mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >This point in my original comment doesn't seem to be fully addressed: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >- In the NEW format of Section 4.2, this sentence may need to be >> >> >> > revisited: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In this case, the last 4 >> >> >> > bits of the previously reserved field are interpreted as embedding >> >> >> > the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >In 03, the corresponding part is >> >> >> > >> >> >> > [..] When the >> >> >> > R-bit is set, the last 4 bits of the previously reserved field are >> >> >> > interpreted as embedding the RP interface ID, as specified in this >> >> >memo. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >but it doesn't address my concern since the point is "the previously >> >> >> >reserved" can be ambiguous. >> >> >> >> >> >> [Med] But that sentence is almost the same as in RFC3956: >> >> >> >> >> >> "...the last 4 >> >> >> bits of the previously reserved field are interpreted as embedding >> >> >> the RP interface ID, as specified in this memo. " >> >> >> >> >> >> That text should be interpreted in the context of RFC3956. >> >> > >> >> >I'm not sure if I understand your logic here, but is there any problem >> >> >with my suggested text? >> >> > >> >> > In this case, the last 4 bits of the field that were reserved in >> >> > [RFC3306] are interpreted as embedding the RP interface ID, as >> >> > specified in this memo. >> >> > >> >> >I believe it's still in the context of RFC3956 (RFC3306 was published >> >> >before RFC3956, and the original RFC3956 actually refers to RFC3306 >> >> >already), and yet addresses my point. This is relatively a minor >> >> >point, and I'm not insisting on adopting the suggestion, but I simply >> >> >don't see the reason for not doing so. >> >> > >> >> >> >I also noticed this (weak) suggestion wasn't adopted: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >: Ah, okay. Maybe it's a distraction, but I'd consider adding a >> >> >> >: "TERMINOLOGY" section or something, where we clarify the point (i.e., >> >> >> >: the draft generally follows RFC 5952 to represent IPv6 addresses >> >> >> >: except in citation of already published documents). But I'd leave it >> >> >> >: to you. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >If ignoring it was your intent, that's fine. I'm pointing it out just >> >> >> >in case it's overlooked. >> >> >> [Med] This comment was included: see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft- >> >> >ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-03#section-1 >> >> >> >> >> >> Textual representation of IPv6 addresses included in the RFC updates >> >> >> follows the recommendation in [RFC5952]. >> >> > >> >> >Ah, okay, I missed that part. >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >JINMEI, Tatuya >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-u… internet-drafts
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… 神明達哉
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… Jouni Korhonen
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… 神明達哉
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… mohamed.boucadair
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… ian Farrer
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… Ian Farrer
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-ar… 神明達哉