>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:31:52 -0500 (EST),
>>>>> Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi Jinmei,
> Thanks for taking the time to verify the changes. See comments inline.
>> 1. Regarding comment 1 in "msg03875.html", I'd also revise the first
>> sentence of Section 1.1
>>
>> From:
>> Addresses generated using Stateless address autoconfiguration
>> [ADDRCONF]contain an embedded 64-bit interface identifier, which
>> remains constant over time.
>>
>> To:
>> Addresses generated using Stateless address autoconfiguration
>> [ADDRCONF] contain an embedded interface identifier, which
>> remains constant over time.
>>
>> In this context, the point should be that the interface identifier
>> remains constant, and the exact number of ID length (64-bit) is
>> rather minor. Thus, removing the number should be safe, and is
>> actually more aligned with the latest sense of rfc2462bis.
> I have the following text in the introduction which restricts the scope of the
> document to 64 bit identifiers.
Yes, I noticed this, but I wanted to make the proposed change in
addition to this one for the reason I mentioned above.
> " Note that an IPv6 identifier does not necessarily have to be 64 bits in
> length, but the algorithm specified in this document is targeted towards
> 64-bit interface identifiers."
> Do you still want me to make this change?
>>
>> 2. Comment 3 in "msg03875.html" does not seem to be addressed.
>> Perhaps this is too minor, however, and I could live with the
>> current text.
> The concerns are described in section 2.3. I did not want to repeat them here.
> However, I can rephrase the sentence
> from
> " The focus of this document is on addresses derived from IEEE identifiers,
> as the concern being addressed exists only in those cases where the
> interface identifier is globally unique and non-changing"
> to
> " The focus of this document is on addresses derived from IEEE identifiers,
> because an interface identifier that is globally unique and non-changing
> can facilitate the tracking of individual devices and possibly users
> of those devices."
> Is that OK?
This is better than the original text, but I'd rephrase it a bit:
The focus of this document is on addresses derived from IEEE
identifiers, because tracking of individual devices, the concern
being addressed here, is possible only in those cases where the
interface identifier is globally unique and non-changing.
But it's completely up to you whether to make a change at all or which
text to use.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
