The IPng working group last call for Draft Standard for:
Title : IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
Author(s) : B. Hinden, S. Deering
Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-06.txt
Pages : 27
Date : 19-Jul-01
was completed on August 31, 2001. A summary of the comments received on
the mailing list and their disposition is attached. Note: Editorial
comments are not included in this summary.
Once a new version of the draft is issued, the document can be forwarded to
the IESG for Draft Standard.
Bob Hinden & Steve Deering
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT 1: Suggestion that it isn't good practice to talk about assigning
multicast address to an interface because it may confuse people and they
might be assigned directly to interfaces (e.g., via ifconfig command).
Text will be changed to clarify this issue.
COMMENT 2: Questioned whether the IPv6 addresses with embedded IPv4 address
should be included in the document.
This was discussed at the interim meeting in Seattle and there was a
consensus to keep the mapped and compatible address in this
document. Other types of transition addresses can be defined in other
documents.
COMMENT 3: Suggestion that the anycast usage scenarios in the document are
very router centric and restrictions for router only usage be eased.
The current text will be revised to clarify that other anycast usage is
possible, but that new uses need to be specified.
COMMENT 4: Suggestion that there be more clarification on the differences
between interface, link, and node in section 2.7 on multicast addresses.
Will add a summary description of the multicast scope values to the document.
COMMENT 5: Questioned the removal of the format prefix (FP) and detailed FP
table, and instead only listing the exceptions to global unicast.
This issue was discussed on the mailing list and there was a consensus that
the current text is appropriate. The resulting behavior of treating the
address space as global unicast, except for the listed exceptions, is correct.
COMMENT 6: Suggestion to reserve some part of the IPv6 and have it's usage
be unspecified.
The discussion on the mailing concluded was this was not a good idea. Past
experience with IPv4 indicated that it becomes very hard to utilize
"unspecified" address space in the future.
COMMENT 7: Suggestion to move IANA considerations to a numbered section
instead of an appendix to make clearer it is normative.
Document will be updated to make the IANA consideration a numbered section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
