Donald, > On May 9, 2023, at 6:37 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com > <mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I generally support advancing this document, but I noticed an issue that > > should be resolved. > > > > In Section 2.2.1. "IPv6 Use of Modified EUI‑64 Identifiers”. The > > contents is technically correct, but it should also mention that this type > > of IPv6 Interface Identifiers are no longer recommended. See RFC8064 > > "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers”. I think it would > > be better if text was added at the beginning of Section 2.2.1 that this > > approach is no longer recommended, include a reference to RFC8064, and say > > something that this is included for completeness (or similar wording). > > Thanks for this cogent comment. > > How about adding the following sentence as a new first paragraph in Section > 2.2.1: "The approach described below for constructing IPv6 is now deprecated > and the method specified in [RFC8064] is RECOMMENDED."
Yes, that is good. Suggest s/constructing IPv6/constructing IPv6 Interface Identifiers/ > > Also changing the beginning of the following text as follows > OLD > UI‑64 identifiers are used to form the lower 64 bits of some > NEW > UI‑64 identifiers have been used to form the lower 64 bits of some Good. Similar change in Section 2.2 would also be good. Bob > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > d3e...@gmail.com <mailto:d3e...@gmail.com> > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > d3e...@gmail.com <mailto:d3e...@gmail.com> > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com > <mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > I generally support advancing this document, but I noticed an issue that > should be resolved. > > In Section 2.2.1. "IPv6 Use of Modified EUI‑64 Identifiers”. The contents > is technically correct, but it should also mention that this type of IPv6 > Interface Identifiers are no longer recommended. See RFC8064 > "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers”. I think it would be > better if text was added at the beginning of Section 2.2.1 that this approach > is no longer recommended, include a reference to RFC8064, and say something > that this is included for completeness (or similar wording). > > Bob > > >> On May 4, 2023, at 11:17 PM, Wassim Haddad >> <wassim.haddad=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org >> <mailto:wassim.haddad=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: >> >> Dear Intarea WG, >> >> This email starts an Intarea WG Last Call on >> draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-04 (“IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and >> Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters”). >> >> A link to the draft: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis/ >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis/> >> >> Please respond to this email to support the documents and/or send comments >> by 05/20/2023. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Juan Carlos & Wassim >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area> > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
