Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Tatuya, > > If it's too late, it's fine. On a different note, did you catch the > fact from Vlad who wanted "should" changed to "SHOULD" in a paragraph > on page 18 of 2462bis? Further, we are also adding that a "should not" > in the same paragraph be changed to "SHOULD NOT". Do you or anyone else > think such a change can be made before the 12 hours expire? This is the > relevant paragraph: > > Note that a future revision of the address architecture [RFC3513] > and a future link-type specific document, which will still be > consistent with each other, could potentially allow for an > interface identifier of length other than the value defined in the > current documents. Thus, an implementation should not assume a > particular constant. Rather, it should expect any lengths of > interface identifiers. > > Thanks.
I am perfectly fine with waiting to clarify this in a implementors guide style document. This was trying to address the issue that some implementations assume a 64 bit prefix when no such guidance have been given (i.e DHCP address lease). The problem with adding this language now is that there should be consensus from the working group since even though it looks like an editorial change, it really is not. -vlad -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
