Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 20 February 2017 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 0272C129416 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:33:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 zAcyi8rVyfgL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F3C2129448 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6D5AFB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:32:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwdMcMoakwHr for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:32:56 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ua0-f200.google.com (mail-ua0-f200.google.com [209.85.217.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5DD46CD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:32:56 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-ua0-f200.google.com with SMTP id t17so71947675uae.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:32:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Zw1tI3viui897uQTr+wBybLdqDLtICmugNE6xG2RO8E=; b=W/3K16slsykWAixUciq70TJjze91SzA7rVhaoXM5nRjCvFnM7f9Utph5TUdJTwG5H1 pK0r6ok42iLWOvBbl+aJr4WokXmAF8OKs+1ukgsoLqRqu2XlsUmQfmruOJjKv+udXoAU i1bbZUNVn8eMqJYTVUYg1iZN8L0DMr3c7od1jSA00qvgtVGJE5JmpAl9MC8/NjgKv642 hU5iUaj/S8WyY8/p4kp5q4tR7AKSNExtLp9WCNPsofxbcF2dFBwHVlZDBsctiwirUhZV Zk53nxrkll3qwkVrMvQEuFVFCZtuCjWxej7GVwyuPtuE0ssbc+R2lNk4XGyU2oHcAfVr eEoQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zw1tI3viui897uQTr+wBybLdqDLtICmugNE6xG2RO8E=; b=U3A/r6CPJc+teYuYEsYRd4hulgT+SRaRF/aZyLItz7FzEqWoOmX6Pi1EZN4syC1ive xts4Rd8GXU6SDSMmfzKv25RW1Y5buhzB0o833c6eGqHg+tGAU25nuPx9EanUCyaJr8hj nDia7L2qFeYSjshX2In6lWLeX15Ta27wsn4rrh+hME3+H5oBEmIfjYt38BBei+HJLPZe D6+ip2le3ajx6ltAsbjoTeh3Rpm9tjsrZk6ijp0jq1O8KP80rwKtDqk1jpru/jddFjBL yAiDAe4x7wqmYrnH33Fzums9pT58d3yAYu95hZhlhI/NYsgG4jwiC1GQlmXBn5NMWTyz vjhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k3Q5Rco6Z/iJc2CVLW6+y2lN7j9+35bfAnGCI0yDJWB5nfIrHTALN6BIr4ZWJmZL6d9ClbXPxyU1qCvHJ5GAt9DR0KwoKPuGDRW0srFcB6JlNLE1FBshZygRxNJI3M+OS2dfp7NO2Fi80=
X-Received: by 10.31.192.204 with SMTP id q195mr11096882vkf.155.1487615576346; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:32:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.192.204 with SMTP id q195mr11096871vkf.155.1487615576126; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:32:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.89.13 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0m1mP4gmGF12NVLDyoo0+QFSRUmetjnPWbv5dU5nEtsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <m2y3x6eutl.wl-randy@psg.com> <B76B6864-5827-4AC1-9BF7-8FFF069C10F1@employees.org> <m2lgt6ed7j.wl-randy@psg.com> <4514E052-25C1-4C85-AB1D-0B53FD9DA0E1@employees.org> <CAN-Dau3VriYNUf96yZEFMMV+-4WCxBz94Lkqfg3OsCUAbVYhaw@mail.gmail.com> <660929B4-158B-453F-9B5F-6C029F9699FA@employees.org> <E093E86F-41F5-4485-A8D3-761831F9AAF8@google.com> <BA018A61-1390-4775-ACB9-61C66D7A34FB@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0m1mP4gmGF12NVLDyoo0+QFSRUmetjnPWbv5dU5nEtsg@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:32:54 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1FvJFU+_MyL1UkFkkaJ9x5dPfiMDkCRfdjNcB1Vb1JFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114388ccfa525f0548fa7d80
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mptRmiBdP9xSSpVbLlLXeBNbEpQ>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:33:00 -0000

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>; wrote:

>
> Do you think it makes sense to cite RFC 7934 as well? There is text in
> there that also justifies the 64 bit boundary.
>

I think a reference to RFC 7934 absolutely belong in the IPv6 Addressing
Architecture, but it seems more appropriate in section 2.1, maybe the
second paragraph or even a new paragraph in that section.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================