[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: past IAB statement about IPv6 Addressing Architecture
From:       Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-03-17 8:01:41
Message-ID: 5326ABE5.1090109 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

David,

RFC 2119 is beside the point. In a standards track document
that does not cite RFC 2119, the normal English interpretation
of words like "must" applies. iirc the addressing architecture
and the basic IPv6 spec do not cite RFC 2119.

The fact that there was some flapping in the architecture
in the early years also seems to be beside the point; things
became clearer as time (and running code) moved on.

    Brian

On 17/03/2014 17:27, David Farmer wrote:
> On 3/13/14, 12:46 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Ran,
> > 
> > On 14/03/2014 05:15, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> > > <http://www.iab.org/appeals/2003-2/iab-response-to-appeal-against-iesg-action-raised-by-mr-r-elz-appeal-text-february-2003/>
> > >  
> > > 
> ...
> > > Quoting from part of that IAB statement, specifically from Section 2.3:
> > > > d) We recommend that, as an update to this document, and via a
> > > > recommendation
> > > > to the IESG, that the IPv6 Working Group uses clearer specification
> > > > language
> > > > as per RFC-2026 and RFC-2119 to describe the requirement for a 64-bit
> > > > Interface-ID in IPv6 unicast addresses not starting with binary 000.
> > 
> > The language in the addressing architecture is very explicit on this,
> > and has been since RFC 3513 (April 2003). Furethermore, the explicit
> > language is in the archived version of
> > draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt
> > which is *earlier* than the mysterious version 11 mentioned in
> > kre's appeal. So I find this part of the appeal mysterious.
> 
> I'm sure this is an unadvisable string to pull on, BUT.
> 
> 
> 1. RFC2373 had a RFC2119 reference.
> 2. RFC2373 has the text "The format prefixes 001 through 111, except for
> Multicast Addresses (1111 1111), are all required to have to have 64-bit
> interface identifiers..."
> 3. For some reason unknown to me; In draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-03
> the reference to RFC2119 was dropped.
> 3. The text "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with
> binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long..." is
> introduced in draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-06, this is essentially
> equivalent to the text in #2
> 4. RFC3513 and RFC4291 have NO reference to to RFC2119 and the text "For
> all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value 000,
> Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long..."
> 
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]