Re: Call for RFC 3041 Implementation Reports

[Brian Haberman]

Sorry for the delay in response...

On Aug 25, 2005, at 0:59, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 05:20:25 -0400,
Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

As mentioned during the IPv6 WG meeting, the chairs are soliciting

implementation reports for IPv6 Privacy Addresses in support of moving
the spec

these implementation reports.  The reports can be sent to the chairs
and/or
the mailing list.

to Draft Standard. The following template should be used for submitting

(snip)

      6. Tested Interoperability by Feature:

           A. Lifetime Management (Section 3.4)

           B. DAD Operation (Section 3.2)

I'm not sure what "interoperability" should be reported about
those...as far as I understand, these are only a matter of the host
using RFC3041, and I don't see any "interoperability" issue here.
Could you clarify the required information?

I was envisioning a validation that the node using RFC 3041 addresses
perform DAD for those addresses and peers cannot detect any
differences in messaging/processing.

Regarding DAD, which specification should be the base of the report,
RFC3041 or draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-04.txt?  (The behavior on
this is very different between these two versions of the spec).

These are implementation reports for 3041, so the basis should be
the RFC.

In either case, I suspect "Section 3.2" should actually be "Section
3.3" (more specifically, Step 7 of Section 3.3).  In fact, neither
RFC3041 or privacy-addrs mentions DAD in Section 3.2 as a part of the
protocol specification.

Correct.  My mistake in typing the message.

Regards,
Brian

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------