Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: idnits in draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps

Hi Fred,

(Resending with a body size which will be accepted by the list)

on 2007-03-20 13:44 Fred Baker said the following:
> Input to the next rev of idnits whenever it comes...
> 
> I posted the idnits output to a team doing a job in v6ops. The fault  
> in part complained about the use of ULA addresses, which one has to  
> consider correct in the context. We need one of two things: a  
> documented set of ULAs that the tool will accept, or that the tool  
> will accept any ULA.

Right.  Currently, no ULAs are accepted.  I can implement either
of your proposals easily:

  (a) Accept any address in the FC00::/7 range
  (b) Accept a subset of FC00::/7 as informally allocated
      documentation ULAs; e.g., FC00:2001:db8::/48

It seems to me that (a) is preferable, as (b) has the drawback
that people won't generally know about it unless we produce a
rfc3849bis.

Would that work?  Or would people find some variation on (b) better?

	Henrik

> On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
>> Good Morning Fred.
>>
>> About addresses like 3ffe:1800::.. and 192.47.., I can change
>> them to documentation address. However, about ULA addresses like
>> fd01:..., how I can change them ?
...

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss