Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-00.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:50:09 +1300

Hi,

I think this is the right way to close off the EUI-64 debate.
Just a couple of small comments:

>    NOTE: [RFC4291] defines the "Modified EUI-64 format" for Interface
>    identifiers.  Appendix A of [RFC4291] then describes how to transform
>    an IEEE EUI-64 identifier, or an IEEE 802 48-bit MAC address from
>    which an EUI-64 identifier is derived, into an interface identifier
>    in the Modified EUI-64 format.

I suggest adding something like

    [RFC7136] updates RFC 4291 to remove the requirement to use the
    Modified EUI-64 format.

(see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7136#section-5)

>    Nodes SHOULD NOT employ IPv6 address generation schemes that embed
>    the underlying hardware address in the Interface Identifier.  Namely,
>    nodes SHOULD NOT generate Interface Identifiers with the schemes
>    specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], and [RFC2470].

Is that list complete? In draft-carpenter-6man-why64 we have
quite a list of IPv6-over-foo documents. It would perhaps be
better to s/Namely/In particular/.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:04:23 -0300

Hi, Brian,

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

>     [RFC7136] updates RFC 4291 to remove the requirement to use the

Will do (assuming no one opposes).

> better to s/Namely/In particular/.

The list might not be complete, since (so far) we haven't done an
exhaustive list of "IPv6 over foo" documents. That said, I think that
all such RFCs should be explicitly identified/listed, since they should
also be included in the "Updates: .." tag/metadata.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:26:47 +1300

Below...

> also be included in the "Updates: .." tag/metadata.

Sure, if you guarantee to find all of them. However, changing the
text to "In particular" allows for the case that you miss one or two.

    Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:53:46 -0300

> text to "In particular" allows for the case that you miss one or two.

Makes sense. Will do.

Thanks!

Best regards,