IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] 118

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 16 April 2019 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C054A12039A; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 xPhyjiKlaGBP; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (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 7F3751205E6; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id d1so10908373plj.8; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2pRkcUXkSXvCPjbNrzoRD9LaHYm3or4rkCpD7AAy6Q4=; b=BK/ABS1slxNbEuAevGp9i+aH0vFsBLSeC+e2Lg4dkxMd2pOCUuV0MnNjb1OOOw3FfL f+FCvvs9KS5P4dJn3SE5b54xj1Yq4Cf6MymfiyGMTKJPPD+N6VY7Dl28dWuCvA/KHWb5 JTdo5kcCB5gpTIRap1p+jFn7QYUgJT4YeRQrFyjUmMSzPqAb+bHkkRJXMCBiIXUDv59Y ZSY8D7lv6njlsP0Wv/xtc5QLbg4qsUKO4H8xMoNNPAtoyLgLeI22ClLoAdiSYaGJTeWR 07vLJ6jVpgEmvERngdiUYC4C+Fkb5M/+5AvCl/LbwK6cwL2L8IEoiSBkCc2j54tm09VU dXWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2pRkcUXkSXvCPjbNrzoRD9LaHYm3or4rkCpD7AAy6Q4=; b=QgGpIBufsUPlsHqnoRPB9ZkweXAjPytn+5+Ez0wFoaDYRvYnTF9iffnLykE0HS2rEG M9PHd3mxYaLRa0qG2tXq+rzZanThys4vjao6ivzpuaNR8gqWbouY5jmLMF5xyDGvswB9 dG0+xvp0TGs3R2qtJiyO6d3V3gdU+92roQaCt0uDeUljckSeB6zKqbf3uJExZHVS5IvA 9Zc0DW+K3LS2I5m2w4JksLYPl2MolE0EpEZD38UA13aSVWSa5w4K2m4wLwrcDaJ6aA8w y74RTd67kwvi1xAoX5v1mt+Ov9oxuYdVRWlQ+eyBb/jv1qCRTWXhhfh+KrR0p1lGsoUx 0dWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXpzzjy7J0MAOGS0wToaE5laMhZXTvuhrtzkODvhR0dr+ecNa70 NY1twIvaIuoe9hDzwwy1jrBUnkjz
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdJOiucCiVycxN/tbwu7385+f8Hwkse55g4IGvmUG9fYxljGa682QMlYg7m6XR/VkiJfuL4w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ec0b:: with SMTP id cy11mr84927899plb.21.1555447896836; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.72.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l10sm77468093pfc.46.2019.04.16.13.51.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, "<int-dir@ietf.org>" <int-dir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org, its@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <155169869045.5118.3508360720339540639@ietfa.amsl.com> <bcb6d12d-5b21-1f10-1afe-221321f8e7a6@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd5t77B5ij3ot-F-ucx5+3A7LATC-VTBx3w2_kCDD8fNA@mail.gmail.com> <96574d8b-c5f4-c641-4a79-47974a18d87e@gmail.com> <b2459889-f8d6-43c0-acc2-2ffe00fb1985@gmail.com> <26900f46-88da-cf3e-9ae0-b23e056ee840@gmail.com> <ad32743d-981a-0ae7-a6ca-f7a4e9841831@gmail.com> <ece445c6-d599-152c-80aa-670495cbb64d@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdVqPT761+59TOPHXnr5RqtjNk6WAA81_jZAogGqpJX2A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <350c5cf2-b338-047d-e99b-db6d6a4f6574@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 08:48:06 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdVqPT761+59TOPHXnr5RqtjNk6WAA81_jZAogGqpJX2A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/SE12Mkxtrd2VJIJTa_NeMQnl46I>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] 118
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 20:51:45 -0000

On 17-Apr-19 04:30, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Tue, 16 Apr 2019 12:58:01 +0200,
> Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> > Not quite, because it also says
>> >
>> > "  An Interface ID SHOULD be of length
>> >     64 decimal for all types of IPv6 addresses.  In the particular case
>> >     of IPv6 link-local addresses, the length of the Interface ID MAY be
>> >     118 decimal."
>> >
>> > which conflicts with RFC4291.
>>
>> True.  I forgot that 118.  Thank you for pointing to it.
>>
>> Remark, it says MAY, not MUST.
>>
>> Do you stronly disagree with 118?  I can remove the phrase containing
>> it, if so.  I can also remove the entire cited text altogether, such
>> that to be silent about the length of the Interface ID.
> 
> (Speaking for myself who just happenned to notice it - I overlooked this
> 118, too).  I'd say it's more consistent with the removal of "fe80::/10"
> if we simply remove "In the particular case of IPv6 link-local
> addresses..." sentence.  If it really has to stay here, it will
> inevitably need to be an update to RFC4291 and need to pass that high
> bar (quite likely delaying the publication substantially, if not
> making it fail).  Unless that's absolutely necessary for this protocol
> specification, it's much safer not to discuss that in this document.

Agreed.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email