Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-03.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:20:07 +1300

Hi,

Here are a few comments on this draft that I should have sent to the list
some time ago. If this was a Gen-ART review I'd say "Ready with nits".

>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>    document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

I don't care, but somebody will insist on the new boilerplate mentioning [RFC8174].

>    The term "global scope addresses" is used in this document to
>    collectively refer to "Global unicast addresses" as defined in
>    [RFC4291] and "Unique local addresses" as defined in [RFC4193].

...and not to "globally reachable" as defined in [RFC8190].

>    2.  The Interface Identifier is obtained by taking as many bits from
>        the aforementioned random number (obtained in the previous step)
>        as necessary.

Maybe worth repeating that there are no special bits in an IID [RFC7136].

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 21:15:39 -0500

Hello, Brian,

Thanks so much for the feedback! In-line...

> I don't care, but somebody will insist on the new boilerplate mentioning [RFC8174].

Will do -- I wasn't aware about this update to RFC2119 (!).

> ....and not to "globally reachable" as defined in [RFC8190].
> 

Both comments make sense. I will apply them in the next rev, unless the
wg argues otherwise.

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492