Re: <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids> update to rfc2464bis

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Bob,

I agree with your view. Some further comments below:

On 01/09/2017 05:40 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Based on update from draft-ietf-6man-default-iids (currently in RFC
> Editor queue) I changed the first two paragraphs of Section 4 of
> <draft-hinden-6man-rfc2464bis-01> to:
> 
> 4.  Stateless Autoconfiguration
> 
> The default approach to create stable Interface Identifiers 
> [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis] for use with SLAAC on an Ethernet 
> interface should be based on [RFC7217].

maybe s/should be based on/is spaciefied in/ ?



> It is not recommended that Interface Identifiers for an Ethernet 
> interface be based on IEEE MAC-layer addresses.

Maybe s/It is not recommended/Nodes should not/ ?

Maybe a reference to default-iids could be useful here (in addition to
the text).


>  Earlier versions of 
> this document described a method of forming interface identifiers 
> derived from IEEE MAC-layer addresses called Modified EUI-64 format. 
> This is described in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis] and is 
> no longer recommended.
> 
> Instead of having it pointing to <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids>, the
> new text points to RFC7271.  I thought this was better as Section 3
> of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids> says the RFC2464 should now follow
> RFC7271 (including should use RFC7217 and should not use stable
> link-layer address).  Avoids a extra hope so to speak.

Agreed.


> I think the intent of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids> is captured in
> the text in the new -01 version.
> 
> Comments?

Looks fine, but please check the small suggestions above.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492