Jeff,
I do not see a consensus for making that type of change in the
IPv6 Addressing Architecture. I believe that the follow-up comments
discussing how embedded the 64-bit boundary is are quite telling.
Regards,
Brian
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
Jari and Brian,
Would the 6man group consider an update to RFC 4291 that is contains
less prescriptive language? If so, I would be happy to undertake that
task. Please let me know.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; steve_eiser...@ao.uscourts.gov; Internet
Architecture Board; 6man mailing list; IESG; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers' to
Proposed Standard
Brian, Jeffrey,
The picture and text that you quoted are in this RFC exactly as they
are
in RFC 4291. We did get some feedback on that text during the last
call,
but we decided that it would be confusing for this particular RFC to
say
something else than RFC 4291. RFC 4291 is, after all, the currently
approved addressing architecture document.
If we ever decide to make a change in the addressing architecture, we
should issue an RFC 4291bis, not change the text in the various other
RFCs that quote 4291 for some reason.
Jari
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
