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

otroan@employees.org Fri, 17 February 2017 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 E332D12951F; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:44:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 nyAZe_x3iWns; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78F6120725; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2017 07:44:07 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D88AD788D; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:44:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=eLOGcZ/M7ZRKuaX4WX3pN0D4Gis=; b= J9bigSVB1RJNv3wsEGRHduSMb2gR/rVgy1cKOGqtSMtVRr5ZmpI/C/49xfRNXDkx 6PaMJydTuMczZjIvxHCFuN6NSswlxD99vcvu1/wlzVEIGvP/spjGAegqtR/epQMf SBoqPmna+nEYkIbSdqfYqUQvcfmXTI7vNmmYS2kSNSc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=DTYWh4/kVUYXFXtH80zFump N4DgGDgIZmViqCcGDSK+aQZKphLqBTXq/4WjaXV8hlp0Zvg4ksDzDqABWrpLEu/2 dX3iUYQwNPFqpO8jalNYH8uM2o2+Ekihp19Oc829ZIs+Nbfv4EwudvkI6F88K1m/ VfVMpsMU23XBjfunKRow=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58FF0D788B; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D3F8BEA6D6; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:44:21 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <ECF27195-4A6B-4AFC-8950-83876F333BD4@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9D922476-13A8-44EA-96F3-AB592440A936"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:44:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <E093E86F-41F5-4485-A8D3-761831F9AAF8@google.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/xJKKvYgvKNgFkPyM4kBJTCgayNU>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@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: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:44:12 -0000

James,

4291:
   For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
   value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
   constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.

4291bis:
   IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
   128 [BCP198].  For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
   on inter-router point-to-point links.  However, the Interface ID of
   all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
   000, is required to be 64 bits long.  The rationale for the 64 bit
   boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]

Proposal:
   IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
  128 bits [BCP198]. However, as explained in [RFC7421], the Interface ID
   of unicast addresses is generally required to be 64 bits in length, with
   exceptions only provided in special cases where expressly recognised
   in IETF standards track documents.

I think that's a good proposal.
Perhaps with s/is generally required to be/are/

Best regards,
Ole