Subject: Sean Turner's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Sean Turner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:52:26 -0800

Sean Turner has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ug/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just trying to get a couple of reviews in early:

1) For the changes to s2.5.1 of RFC 4291 in s5, should it be:

  "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
    value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long. If derived
    from an IEEE MAC-layer address, they MUST be constructed in Modified
    EUI-64 format."

I.e., r/must/MUST?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:03:52 +1300

Sean

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ug/

RFC 4291 doesn't cite RFC 2119, so it seems logical that the updated
text uses lower case. Otherwise, we'd also have to formally update
4291 with that citation too.

I didn't see your point 2).

   Brian

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:51:16 -0500

> 4291 with that citation too.

Err yeah ;)

> I didn't see your point 2).

Yep only one point.

spt