Elwyn,
At 03:46 AM 01/19/2005, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Hi.
Overall this should be out there rsn.
However, there are is one point that needs clearing up in the estimation of collision probability (S3.2.3):
In para 2 (above the formula), N is stated to be the total number of such IDs whereas in parentheses after the formula N is defined to be the number of connections). I believe what is meant is that N is the total number of Global IDs that are interconnected. Also suggest the phrase after the formula would be better as:
where P is the probability of collision, N is the number Global IDs interconnected and L is the length of the global ID.
I agree. It the text after the formula should be:
approximates the probability of collision (where N is the number interconnections global IDs and L is the length of the global ID).
Few minor wording grumbles:
Thanks for the editorial suggestions. I will incorporate them as appropriate in the next draft.
Thanks, Bob
S3.1.1, last para: Trillion is not an internationally unique term: s/trillion/*10^12/
S3.2.1, para 1: The second sentence doesn't say quite what it means now:
s/
It is important to ensure a reasonable
likelihood of uniqueness that all sites generating a Global IDs use a
functionally similar algorithm.
/
It is important that all sites generating Global IDs use a functionally
similar [equivalent??] algorithm to ensure there is a reasonable
likelihood [high probability???] of uniqueness.
/
I have vague recollections that the word 'similar' was settled on here after considerable discussion.
Many places (S3.1 (3 places), S3.1.1 (3 places), S3.2.1 (2 places), S3.2.2 (2 places), S3.2.3(8 places), S6.2): Capitalization of Global ID is not consistent: s/global ID/Global ID/
S3.2.2, last para; S4.4 (2 places): s/local IPv6/Local IPv6/
S4.3, paras 2 and 3: There seems to be some duplication of words here: The "reject" route is installed twice and ICMPv6 considerations are duplicated. I am not sure if these were originally intended to say different things?
S4.5: s/reachable any point/reachable at any point/
S4.6: s/automatically the way/automatically in the way/ S5.0, first para: s/unadvisable/inadvisable/ [OK... this is a personal thing]
Regards, Elwyn
At 00:09 15/01/2005, Brian Haberman wrote:<<snip>>IPv6 WG,
In order to resolve the last IESG discuss comment on the ULA draft two sets of changes are proposed. Sam Hartman, who holds the Discuss, has reviewed these changes and said these proposed changes resolve the Discuss. The changes are:
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
