Subject: IPv6 WG Last Call on "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Format for the 2000::/3 Prefix"

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:58:51 -0500

This is an IPv6 working group last call for comments on submitting the
following document for consideration as a Proposed Standard RFC:

	Title		: IPv6 Global Unicast Address Format for the 2000::/3 Prefix
	Author(s)	: R. Hinden, S. Deering
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-01.txt
	Pages		: 4
	Date		: 4-Feb-03

The document can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-01.txt

This document will replace RFC2374 "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast
Address Format", which is already a Proposed Standard RFC. RFC2374 will
become historic.

Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor
editorial comments to the authors.  This last call period will end two
weeks from today on February 21, 2003.

Margaret Wasserman / Bob Hinden

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:25:03 -0500

> following document for consideration as a Proposed Standard RFC:

My assumption is that the purpose of this document is spelled out in
the introduction:

   While this approach was originally thought to be a good way to
   allocate IPv6 addresses, subsequent experience and discussion showed
   that it would be better to leave flexibility in the definition of
   IPv6 allocation policies to the Internet Address Registries, in order
   to allow a better balance among the competing requirements.  This is
   consistent with the recommendations made by the IAB and IESG in
   [RFC3177].

As the above doesn't really have a lot of detail, some more
explanation would be good. For example, I still see people
occasionally make statements about how IPv6 address allocation will
enforce some sort of strict heirarchy (this comes from reading 2374,
which this one is obsoleting). Explicitly explaining why that thinking
is no longer in vogue would seem useful.

Also, this document doesn't say anything about exchanges, whereas 2374
has explicit text. Should this document say anything about this? Are
exchanges no longer supported? (I don't think that is the answer, but
by not mentioning exchanges, one might draw that conclusion.)

As for section 2.0, it seems to just be restating stuff documented in
addr-arch. Generally, I think it's better not to repeat stuff from
other documents. Also, wording like:

   The specific format of global unicast address under the 2000::/3
   prefix is:

might cause some folk to think that the format of addresses under
2000::/3 is somehow different than that for other prefixes. But that
isn't the case; the other prefixes generally follow the same format. I
don't see how it makes things more clear to single out the 2000::/3
prefix for special discussion on this point.  Thus, I think all of
Section 2 could be removed.

If Section 2.0 is removed, there is nothing in the document that needs
to be on standards track. Indeed, given that none of section 2 is new,
it all restates stuff on addr-arch, I don't think even this document
should go on standards track. Having this document be info, and
obsoleting 2473 would work just fine process wise.

Thomas

---

From: Heikki Vatiainen <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Feb 2003 19:29:43 +0200

> Address Format", which is already a Proposed Standard RFC. RFC2374 will

If RFC 2374 will become historic, should
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt be revised a bit so that it no
longer refers to RFC 2374? Or is it already too late?

-- 
Heikki Vatiainen                  * [email-masked]
Tampere University of Technology  * Tampere, Finland
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:21:44 -0500

> longer refers to RFC 2374? Or is it already too late?

I don't see the reference to 2374 as being a significant
problem. Specifically, part of the IESG feedback on addr-arch was to
be clear that the reference to 2374 was one possible example, and not
normative or The Definitive Example. The only reference to 2374 in the
revised document is:

   Examples of global unicast addresses that start with binary 000 are
   the IPv6 address with embedded IPv4 addresses described in section
   2.5.5 and the IPv6 address containing encoded NSAP addresses
   specified in [NSAP].  An example of global addresses starting with a
   binary value other than 000 (and therefore having a 64-bit interface
   ID field) can be found in [AGGR].

This is quite different than 2374, which has a much stronger
reference.

Thomas