Subject: [6man] #14 (rfc4291bis): Reference to default-iid

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:33:26 -0000

#14: Reference to default-iid

 However, I believe that we need to get draft-ietf-6man-default-iids
 to the IESG at the same time. Having it referenced as a draft in 4291bis
 is inappropriate, even though it's informational. If that isn't possible,
 I think the reference should be removed.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  [email-masked]
  [email-masked]   |     Status:  new
     Type:  defect       |  Milestone:
 Priority:  major        |    Version:
Component:  rfc4291bis   |   Keywords:
 Severity:  In WG Last   |
  Call                   |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/14>
6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>

---

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:41:01 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 It might better to change the example to point to RFC7721 "Security and
 Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms" or RFC7271
 "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with
 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)" as they are already RFCs
 and provides similar guidance.

 Comments?

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-6man-
  [email-masked]   |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc4291bis   |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last   |  Resolution:
  Call                   |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/14#comment:1>
6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:13:53 +1200

>  and provides similar guidance.

Makes sense to me, unless default-iid makes rapid progress in the WG.

    Brian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:55:11 +0200

> Makes sense to me, unless default-iid makes rapid progress in the WG.

OLD:
   The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in other
   specifications, such as "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration in IPv6" [RFC4941] and "Recommendation on Stable
   IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [I-D.ietf-6man-default-iids].  Specific
   cases are described in appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specifications,
   such as "IPv6 over Ethernet" [RFC2464] and "Transmission of IPv6
   Packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks" [RFC7428].

NEW:
   The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in other
   specifications, such as "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration in IPv6" [RFC4941] or "A Method for Generating
   Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)" [RFC7271].  Specific cases are described in
   appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specifications,   such as "IPv6 over Ethernet" [RFC2464].
   The security and privacy considerations for IPv6 address generation is described in
   [RFC7721].

cheers,
Ole

---

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:25:46 -0000

Change to fix this published in draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-03.txt .

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/14#comment:2>
6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>