Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> (Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers) to Proposed Standard

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:53:24 -0500

Just a couple of places where the text could be made clearer:

In the Abstract is this text:

   This document changes the recommended default IID generation scheme
   for cases where SLAAC is used to generate a stable IPv6 address.  It
   recommends using the mechanism specified in RFC7217 in such cases,
   and recommends against embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6
   Interface Identifiers.

However, it would be useful for readers who aren't deeply familiar with
the subject to provide a brief description of "the mechanism specified
in RFC7217".  I suggest

   It recommends using semantically opaque IIDs generated by the
   mechanism specified in RFC7217 in such cases, and recommends against
   embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6 Interface Identifiers.

Similarly, the introduction contains

   As a result of the aforementioned issues, this document changes the
   recommended default IID generation scheme for generating stable IPv6
   addresses with SLAAC to that specified in [RFC7217], and recommends
   against embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6 Interface
   Identifiers, such that the aforementioned issues are mitigated.

which would be more informative as

   As a result of the aforementioned issues, in order to use
   semantically opaque IIDs, this document changes the
   recommended default IID generation scheme for generating stable IPv6
   addresses with SLAAC to that specified in [RFC7217], and recommends
   against embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6 Interface
   Identifiers, such that the aforementioned issues are mitigated.

Dale