Re: default-iids and stable addresses

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Tue, 17 May 2016 14:15:08 -0400,
Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The two issues raised by Lorenzo regarding default-iids boil down to:
>
> 1) The ability to embed MAC addresses in the IID
>
> 2) The requirement to have stable addresses

[...]

> Our document simply requires implementations that their
> stable addresses are RFC7721-friendly. But if anything, the requirement
> of whether to have a stable address or not is not something introduced
> by our document.
>
> As a co-author of draft-ietf-6man-default-iids, I just wanted to check
> that we're on the same page, because I have the feeling that the above
> keeps getting misinterpreted.

Misinterpretation (I'd call it confusion in this context, though) of a
document often happens because the document isn't clear enough, rather
than because there's an issue at the readers' side (as the wording
"getting misinterpreted" seems to indicate).  And I think that's
actually what's happening for this document right now.  In fact, it's
not clear at least to me from the current draft how it answers the
above two points.  Its current vagueness may come from attempts of
addressing previous controversy, but, for this fresh reader of the
document, the resulting text is very confusing.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya