Bob, That's very much what the authors got from the discussion. We plan a -01 draft before the cutoff, with many clarifications in the text.
Regards Brian On 20/02/2013 15:41, Bob Hinden wrote: > After reading the email thread on <draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00.txt>, the 6man > chairs think the sense of the work group is: > > 1) The "u and g" bits did not end up being as useful as was thought when > RFC4291 was standardized. Consequently, we don't think there is any need to > continue the notion that an IID with "u" set to 1 means the IID contains a > globally unique token. > > 2) Under the current scheme defined in RFC4291, the "u" bit only means that > the node creating the IID asserts that it is globally unique. It is > incorrect to make any other assumptions about what is in the IID. The IID > should be viewed as opaque by third parties. > > 3) There isn't any need to change any running code. There isn't any > operational problem with the current definition of the "u" and "g" bits. > Removing the properties for these bits should only apply to new standards > that define new methods to create IIDs. > > 4) DAD should, of course, continue to be used as is specified. > > 5) Having <draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00.txt> become a w.g. document to clarify > these issues would be useful and we think there is support in the w.g. for > this. > > Bob & Ole > 6man chairs > > p.s. We are reviewing the discussion on <draft-ietf-softwire-4rd> and will > send another email on that topic later. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
