Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03.txt

[Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]>]

Hi Will,
In that case, sticking to RFC2119 keywords, I'd say it should be a SHOULD rather than a RECOMMENDED.
Regards,Mark.
      From: Liushucheng (Will) <[e-mail]>
 To: Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]> 
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> 
 Sent: Monday, 18 May 2015, 12:30
 Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03.txt
   
#yiv0394917202 #yiv0394917202 -- _filtered #yiv0394917202 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0394917202 {font-family:宋体;panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv0394917202 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0394917202 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0394917202 {panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}#yiv0394917202 #yiv0394917202 p.yiv0394917202MsoNormal, #yiv0394917202 li.yiv0394917202MsoNormal, #yiv0394917202 div.yiv0394917202MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:宋体;}#yiv0394917202 a:link, #yiv0394917202 span.yiv0394917202MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0394917202 a:visited, #yiv0394917202 span.yiv0394917202MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0394917202 p.yiv0394917202msonormal, #yiv0394917202 li.yiv0394917202msonormal, #yiv0394917202 div.yiv0394917202msonormal {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:宋体;}#yiv0394917202 p.yiv0394917202msochpdefault, #yiv0394917202 li.yiv0394917202msochpdefault, #yiv0394917202 div.yiv0394917202msochpdefault {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:宋体;}#yiv0394917202 span.yiv0394917202msohyperlink {}#yiv0394917202 span.yiv0394917202msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv0394917202 span.yiv0394917202emailstyle17 {}#yiv0394917202 p.yiv0394917202msonormal1, #yiv0394917202 li.yiv0394917202msonormal1, #yiv0394917202 div.yiv0394917202msonormal1 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:宋体;}#yiv0394917202 span.yiv0394917202msohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0394917202 span.yiv0394917202msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0394917202 span.yiv0394917202emailstyle171 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0394917202 p.yiv0394917202msochpdefault1, #yiv0394917202 li.yiv0394917202msochpdefault1, #yiv0394917202 div.yiv0394917202msochpdefault1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:宋体;}#yiv0394917202 span.yiv0394917202EmailStyle27 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0394917202 .yiv0394917202MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0394917202 {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}#yiv0394917202 div.yiv0394917202WordSection1 {}#yiv0394917202 Hi Mark,    I'd keep 'RECOMMENDED' since 'STRONGLY' is not really a RFC2119 keyword, only "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL".    Regards, Will (Shucheng LIU)    From: Mark ZZZ Smith [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:10 AM
To: Liushucheng (Will)
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03.txt                From: Liushucheng (Will) <[e-mail]>
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, 8 May 2015, 15:58
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03.txt    Hi Mark,   Thank you for your comments. The part you added makes sense. We will update the document accordingly.    / A further little thought, perhaps "STRONGLY RECOMMENDED" for the text I suggested, since the IPv6 IIDs are not going to be following the IID recommendations in the document?    Regards, Mark.   Regards, Will (Shucheng LIU)      From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf OfMark ZZZ Smith
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 8:50 AM
To: [e-mail];[e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03.txt   Hi,   I've one suggestion for the following text (**s)   "It is RECOMMENDED by this document that future specifications do not    specify IPv6 address generation schemes that embed the underlying    link-layer address in the IID.  Future specifications MAY use an IID    based on a node's link-layer address if design and engineering    considerations warrant. ** Note that some link-layers support locally assigned link-layer addresses [IEEE 802-2001], such as [IEEE 802.3] and [IEEE 802.11], or random addresses [Bluetooth 4.1]. Where IPv6 IIDs are to be derived from link-layer addresses, it is RECOMMENDED that the random addresses supported by the link-layer are used, or that pseudo-random locally assigned link-layer addresses are generated, assigned and used.***"   Regards, Mark.   

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail] 
Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015, 6:53
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03.txt 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.

        Title          : Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers
        Authors        : Fernando Gont
                          Alissa Cooper
                          Dave Thaler
                          Will Liu
    Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03.txt
    Pages          : 9
    Date            : 2015-05-06

Abstract:
  The IPv6 addressing architecture defines Modified EUI-64 format
  Interface Identifiers, and the existing IPv6 over various link-layers
  specify how such identifiers are derived from the underlying link-
  layer address (e.g., an IEEE LAN MAC address) when employing IPv6
  Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC).  The security and
  privacy implications of embedding link-layer addresses in the
  Interface Identifier have been known and understood for some time
  now, and some popular IPv6 implementations have already deviated from
  such schemes to mitigate these issues.  This document changes the
  recommended default Interface Identifier generation scheme for SLAAC
  to that specified in RFC7217, and recommends against embedding link-
  layer addresses in IPv6 Interface Identifiers.  It formally updates
  RFC2464, RFC2467, RFC2470, RFC2491, RFC2492, RFC2497, RFC2590,
  RFC3146, RFC3572, RFC4291, RFC4338, RFC4391, RFC4944, RFC5072, and
  RFC5121, which require IPv6 Interface Identifiers to be derived from
  the underlying link-layer address.  Additionally, this document
  provides advice about the generation of Interface Identifiers with
  other address configuration mechanisms, such as Dynamic Host
  Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCPv6) and manual configuration.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-default-iids/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------