Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 11 January 2017 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 E328D12963D; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:52:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-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 xEM-MP8rTVC4; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F931295A3; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cR85q-00039A-OG; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:52:51 +0000
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:52:48 +0900
Message-ID: <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
In-Reply-To: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wKdxrOXv_-_X-JmuFXqAxSLCnAA>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, int-dir@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: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:52:53 -0000

> 1. Section 2.2.3 looks like a complete re-production of RFC 5952, but
> I don't see a reference to 5952. Is the intent to deprecate 5952 since
> its content is now contained within 4291bis?

5952 has much more very useful detail for those of us who write software
to parse, compare, ... textual representations of ipv6 addresses, see
section 4 of 5952.  so i suggest the replacement of 2.2 with a reference
to 5952.

it is very cheering to see section 2.4.0, "96 more bits no magic"
[credit gaurab].

but i am having a hard time reconciling 2.4.4's insistence on a
mandatory 64-bit uuid in all unicast global addresses with 2.4.0, rfc
6141, widespread operational practice, ...  clue bat please.

randy