Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-15.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:21:28 -0800

A new version (-15) has been submitted for draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-15.txt

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses/

Diff from previous version:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-15

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

IETF Secretariat.

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:12:04 -0500

Hi Fernando,
  Sorry for missing this in the earlier revs. In Section 5, Step 2, the
following text is insufficient.

"The resulting Interface Identifier SHOULD be compared against the
 Subnet-Router Anycast [RFC4291] and the Reserved Subnet Anycast
 Addresses [RFC2526], and against those Interface Identifiers
 already employed in an address of the same network interface and
 the same network prefix."

There are a few more reserved IID ranges that you need to compare
against including the two IEEE blocks and the PMIPv6 IIDs. I would be
much happier if this draft just referred to the RFC5453 registry instead
as it will cover all the reserved IIDs. I would like to propose the
following replacement text.

"The resulting Interface Identifier SHOULD be compared against the
 reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers [RFC5453][RIID] and against those
 Interface Identifiers already employed in an address of the same
 network interface and  the same network prefix."

[RIID]->
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-interface-ids/ipv6-interface-ids.xhtml

Thanks
Suresh

On 11/26/2013 03:21 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:49:07 -0300

Hi, Suresh,

Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line...

On 11/26/2013 01:12 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> as it will cover all the reserved IIDs.

Indeed, an earlier version referenced the registry rather than list the
reserved IIDs/ranges. IIRC, it was lter suggested that we reference the
specific IIDs/ranges because we were considering deprecating special
IIDs or something like that.

Bob/Ole: I'm almost sure we discussed this one... do you recall the
rationale?

> I would like to propose the

Just double-checking: Is RFC5453 really needed here, or is it kind of
obsoleted by the IANA registry?

> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-interface-ids/ipv6-interface-ids.xhtml

Thanks so much for the proposed text. I'll await for Bob/Ole's (and
Brian's) take on this one? (but it looks like a good idea -- at least
without remembering the rationale for doing what we did :-) ).

Thanks!

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

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:46:53 -0500

Hi Fernando,

> obsoleted by the IANA registry?

RFC5453 explains the rationale for avoiding these IIDs, and it created
the registry.

> without remembering the rationale for doing what we did :-) ).

No probs.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:01:59 -0300

> RFC5453 explains the rationale for avoiding these IIDs, and it created

Ok. I'm just awaiting for input on the topic, and if agreed, I'll apply
it. (Me, I like the proposed change).

Thanks!

Cheers,

---

From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:10:16 +0200

> without remembering the rationale for doing what we did :-) ).

The IANA list had been proposed by me too when discussing a very first version of the draft, but i don't know when/why it got removed.

--
Tassos