Subject: Privacy Addresses AUTH48 Changes

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:07:34 -0400

Hi Folks,
   I would like to make the following editorial change to the upcoming 
Privacy Addresses RFC.

I would like to add the following sentence to section 3.2.1 step 4

This list currently includes the reserved anycast interface identifiers 
listed in [RFC2526]. This list may be expanded in the future to include 
further interface identifiers.

after this sentence

Compare the generated identifier against a list of
reserved interface identifiers and to those already
assigned to an address on the local device.

Please let me know by June 29 2007 if you have any objections.

Cheers
Suresh

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:03:57 +0900

At Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:07:34 -0400,

> Please let me know by June 29 2007 if you have any objections.

I don't have an objection to the idea of including RFC2526 per se, but
I have a concern:

This reference (RFC2526) was not included in
draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-05 and will be newly added to the
final RFC version-05, right?  If so, which category are you intending
to specify for this reference, normative vs informative?  It cannot be
normative since RFC2526 is a proposed standard while the privacy
address RFC will become a draft standard; but I'd categorize it as
normative in the above context because implementors must refer to
RFC2526 to implement the privacy-addrs spec.

A possibly related comment: there is a dangling reference in Section 8
of the 05 version of I-D:

   1.  Excluded certain interface identifiers from the range of
       acceptable interface identifiers.  Interface IDs such as those
       for reserved anycast addresses [RFC], etc.

I guess the "[RFC]" should actually be "[RFC2526]".  (Sorry if this
has already been pointed out).

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:53:48 -0400

Hi Jinmei,
   Thanks for pointing that out. I will be adding the reference to 
RFC2526 under Informational. Yes. The dangling reference was to RFC2526 
as well. I have already fixed it since it was just a editorial nit.

Cheers
Suresh

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:46:34 +0900

At Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:53:48 -0400,
Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> RFC2526 under Informational. Yes.

Okay, then the problem is whether we can safely categorize the
reference to RFC2526 as informative.  I personally don't think it's

> > RFC2526 to implement the privacy-addrs spec.

but I personally wouldn't oppose to your proposed action either (I
often feel the downref rule doesn't help much for implementors in
practice while it can easily be an unnecessary showstopper in the
standardization process).  In any event, I think we should confirm the
consensus about the categorization in this wg (and possibly with the
ADs).

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:07:28 -0400

Hi Jinmei,
   You have a point. I agree with you about the downref rule being an 
NOP for implementers (I do not care either). This is another reason that 
I wanted to go with an IANA registry for the purpose. Then we do not 
have to worry about the administrative hurdles of the downref. I will 
wait for further comments from the WG before I make the change.

Cheers
Suresh