Subject: Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:14:11 -0800

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ug-06: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So I'm 100% in favor of the goal if this draft however:

  Their aim is to reduce confusion
   while retaining the useful aspects of the "u" and "g" bits in IIDs.

If they're now opaque then their useful attributes is that they are two
bits. the only way to know with any degree of certainty if an ip address
is derived from a mac address if if you have an L2 adjacency with the
device or have insight into how it was provisioned.

The text does not really mollify me with respect to retaining "useful"
aspects of the u and g bits.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:12:28 +1300

On 17/12/2013 21:14, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
...

Yes, you're right; I think that phrase was written very early in the
life of the draft, when it seemed like a reasonable statement. After
several attempts at improving the sentence, I think the best solution
is to delete it, so the start of Section 5 would simply be:

   This section describes clarifications to the IPv6 specifications that
   result from the above discussion.

     Brian

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:15:39 -0800

I can live with that, thanks.

Rfc editor note that does that is sufficient. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 17, 2013, at 11:12, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>