Hi, Bob, On 05/10/2012 08:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >>> - The current draft is written to not allow the IETF to create >>> derivative works. This is incompatible with the IETF standards >>> process. See section 4 of >>> http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt >> >> My understanding is that this is perfectly compatible with the >> IETF standards process, as long as this restriction is removed >> before posting as draft-ietf (for instance, I guess that's why it's >> allowed in the first place). (this restriction will be removed in >> the upcoming draft-ietf version, accordingly) > > It is allowed and I don't want to start a big IPR thread here, but I > think the intent for this clause (no derivative works) is for work > that someone wants to present to a w.g. that was not intended to be > an IETF work item. My opinion is that it's not appropriate for > documents intended to become an IETF work item as yours was.
I will consult this upstream and try to remove this restriction in future items. However, I should say that since the above restriction is completely removed once/if the document is adopted by a WG (as required by the standards process), I find it hard to see what's the issue. IMHO, it would be kind of weird for an individual I-D to be controversial because of this, and then have *RFCs* that have real and concrete implementation restrictions -- in this case, any such restrictions are gone way before the document becomes an actual RFC. >>> - The draft should not replace modified EUI-64 IIDs. It intents >>> to provide an alternative to IEEE MAC based modified EUI-64 >>> IIDs. >> [....] >> Agreed. However, it looks like this document should update RFC2464, >> though. >> >> Thoughts? > > Perhaps at some point in the future if the working group wants to > require stable privacy addresses, but not at this point. I think we > will need operational experience before making that change. Fair enough. My concern was that, specs-wise, IIDs will still be required to embed IEEE-identifiers. So even if the "update" is not about "you must use stable privacy addresses", the metadata should help anyone implementing IPv6 over Ethernet to notice the problems of IEEE-derived IIDs, and possible alternatives. Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
