At Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:07:34 -0400,
Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to make the following editorial change to the upcoming
> Privacy Addresses RFC.
>
> I would like to add the following sentence to section 3.2.1 step 4
>
> This list currently includes the reserved anycast interface identifiers
> listed in [RFC2526]. This list may be expanded in the future to include
> further interface identifiers.
>
> after this sentence
>
> Compare the generated identifier against a list of
> reserved interface identifiers and to those already
> assigned to an address on the local device.
>
> Please let me know by June 29 2007 if you have any objections.
I don't have an objection to the idea of including RFC2526 per se, but
I have a concern:
This reference (RFC2526) was not included in
draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-05 and will be newly added to the
final RFC version-05, right? If so, which category are you intending
to specify for this reference, normative vs informative? It cannot be
normative since RFC2526 is a proposed standard while the privacy
address RFC will become a draft standard; but I'd categorize it as
normative in the above context because implementors must refer to
RFC2526 to implement the privacy-addrs spec.
A possibly related comment: there is a dangling reference in Section 8
of the 05 version of I-D:
1. Excluded certain interface identifiers from the range of
acceptable interface identifiers. Interface IDs such as those
for reserved anycast addresses [RFC], etc.
I guess the "[RFC]" should actually be "[RFC2526]". (Sorry if this
has already been pointed out).
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
