RE: [Errata Rejected] RFC7421 (5699)
"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Tue, 21 December 2021 10:08 UTC
Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767753A09AB; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 02:08:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 4CqKrWqfIS-S; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 02:08:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 416853A08C7; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 02:08:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml744-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4JJBtJ0NY6z67ZJt; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 18:06:00 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.221) by fraeml744-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.225) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:08:26 +0100
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.56) by kwepeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 18:08:24 +0800
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) by dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.020; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 18:08:24 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com" <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk" <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "fgont@si6networks.com" <fgont@si6networks.com>, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, "alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr" <alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr>, "ayourtch@cisco.com" <ayourtch@cisco.com>
CC: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Errata Rejected] RFC7421 (5699)
Thread-Topic: [Errata Rejected] RFC7421 (5699)
Thread-Index: AQHX9F/sqxIl6SBtvESd5vsBqydjnaw8t/qQ
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:08:24 +0000
Message-ID: <2117e293baa44064a705b1c9b9bfbfc2@huawei.com>
References: <20211218223704.01945121096@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20211218223704.01945121096@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.40.81]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mHH5ay-hnYc5SQgCoMncsF1Ye0I>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:08:36 -0000
Though this is not about a tech discussion thread, I would like to comment on this. 1) The boundary of 64-bit is not a MUST, and it has been stated in many RFCs even in this RFC. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7421#section-4.3.2 2) The main reason why we have this boundary may be the IID can be generated by the MAC address. But EUI-modified is not suggested due to security and privacy considerations https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8064#section-3. 3) For end user address allocation, the SLAAC can also support flexible prefix allocation, same to DHCPv6. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7217#section-5 4) For infrastructure address, they are configured, and operators may use longer prefix to save addresses. 5) RFC7608 describes that any length of IPv6 prefix MUST can be processed by IPv6 node, so 64-boundary is not a MUST. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7608 Many people trust that the IPv6 has a 64/64 format, but we don't. Only some specific address type may have, like ULA, LLA, https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml It seems like we need to help to understand IPv6 better. In the end, it is so happy to have free time to read RFCs and writing emails. Happy holidays guys! Respect, Cheng -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of RFC Errata System Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 6:37 AM To: alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com; brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com; tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk; fgont@si6networks.com; Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>; alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr; ayourtch@cisco.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC7421 (5699) The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7421, "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5699 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Editorial Reported by: Alexandre PETRESCU <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2019-04-19 Rejected by: Erik Kline (IESG) Section: GLOBAL Original Text ------------- Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Carpenter, Ed. Request for Comments: 7421 Univ. of Auckland Category: Informational T. Chown ISSN: 2070-1721 Univ. of Southampton F. Gont SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH S. Jiang Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd A. Petrescu CEA, LIST A. Yourtchenko Cisco January 2015 Corrected Text -------------- Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Carpenter, Ed. Request for Comments: 7421 Univ. of Auckland Category: Informational T. Chown ISSN: 2070-1721 Univ. of Southampton F. Gont SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH S. Jiang Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd A. Yourtchenko Cisco January 2015 Notes ----- For some reason I got in the group, then participated positively to the discussion, and I let myself tempted to have my name up on the first page of a published RFC; but finally, after much time and reflexion, I think I do not agree with the effects of this RFC. I do not agree that 64bit is a boundary. Remark: you are asking Type 'Technical' or 'Editorial'; only one choice is possible. I do not understand that. My issue is both. --VERIFIER NOTES-- Quoting the AD at the time: "RFCs are immutable once published. Period." For more discussion, see the mail archive thread https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HzHbbAqaa4qquKNjaYtv3Te7IJc/ -------------------------------------- RFC7421 (draft-ietf-6man-why64-08) -------------------------------------- Title : Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing Publication Date : January 2015 Author(s) : B. Carpenter, Ed., T. Chown, F. Gont, S. Jiang, A. Petrescu, A. Yourtchenko Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : IPv6 Maintenance Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- [Errata Rejected] RFC7421 (5699) RFC Errata System
- RE: [Errata Rejected] RFC7421 (5699) Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: [Errata Rejected] RFC7421 (5699) Sheng Jiang
- Re: [Errata Rejected] RFC7421 (5699) Erik Kline