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

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:05:31 -0800

Benoit Claise 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No objection to the publication, but let's speak about this one.

When you wrote about the "u/l" bit:

      In an IID, this bit is in position 6, i.e., position 70 in the
      complete IPv6 address.

You actually mean the 7th position because you start counting at 0. I
guess that you have RFC 4291 appendix. A in mind:

   |0              1|1              3|3              4|4              6|
   |0              5|6              1|2              7|8              3|
   +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
   |cccccc1gcccccccc|cccccccc11111111|11111110mmmmmmmm|mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm|
   +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

Without knowing that you start counting at 0, this is a mistake.
Proposal (but feel free to develop your own text):

      In an IID, this bit is in the seventh from the left, i.e., position
70 in the
      complete IPv6 address, when starting counting at zero like in the
figures in RFC 4291 appendix A.

Same remark for the "i/g" bit:

      In an IID, this bit is in position 7, i.e., position 71 in the
      complete IPv6 address.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 07:50:10 +1300

Benoit,

On 14/12/2013 04:05, Benoit Claise wrote:
...
> guess that you have RFC 4291 appendix. A in mind:

Well yes, that's why we wrote "position 6" instead of "6th position".
But you are correct, it would be clearer to insert "counting from 0".
If there are no other major changes, we can do this as a note to
the RFC Editor.

   Brian

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

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:07:20 +0100

Brian,
> If there are no other major changes, we can do this as a note to
Sure. Whatever works.

Thanks and regards, Benoit
> .