> => the draft is supposed to address both issues. For the first one > we can add more cautionary words if one believes there are not yet > enough. For the second one we already merged two very different > experiments into one request.
Well, if that is what we want, then we can write a much simpler draft, "reserving a prefix for non routable identifiers". It will have essentially one or two paragraph of text, plus the usual ten pages of boiler text: "Various experiments require encoding a non routable identifier in the format of an IPv6 address. To avoid confusion with regular use of IPv6 address, we instruct the IANA to reserve the prefix xxxx:yyyy::/n for that purpose. (TBD IANA: specific value of xxxx:yyyy; TBD working group: specific value of n). The addresses will have the following format: +---------------+---------------------------------------------+ | n bits prefix | (128-n) bits identifier | +---------------+---------------------------------------------+ Different experiments are expected to construct the identifier in different ways. Each experiment is expect to specify how the identifier is constructed and verified, e.g. using experiment-specific cryptographic procedures. Each experiment MUST specify an identifier verification method that will validate properly allocated identifiers according to this experiment, and invalidate incompatible identifiers allocated according to different experiments." -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
