Hi Hemant, I went through the document and it looks very good. There is just one thing I would like to comment on.
* The document claims to only clarify RFC4861 but it overreaches a bit. If you look at section 2 bullet 3, this lays out a NEW rule for a host to follow. This rule does not exist in RFC4861. I personally feel that this rule is intuitive and desirable, but it is certainly not backward compatible. Cheers Suresh Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Folks, > > Could you please review this draft now that it's a 6man WG work item. So > far this version has taken care of comments on an earlier version that > the following folks reviewed. > > Suresh Krishnan > Jinmei Tatuya > Thomas Narten > Ralph Droms > > Brian Carpenter sent us a private email on his review of this version. > We have taken care of his review as follows. > > At the end of section 2, the following paragraph has been changed from > > [This case is analogous to the behavior > specified in the last paragraph of section 7.2.2 of > [RFC4861]: when address resolution fails, the host SHOULD > send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable indication as > specified in [RFC4861]. The specified behavior MAY be > extended to cover this case where address resolution cannot > be performed.] > > to > > [This case is specified in the last paragraph of section 4 of > [RFC4943]: when there is no route to destination, the host > should send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable indication > (for example, a locally delivered error message) as > specified in the Terminology section of [RFC4861].] > > > Thanks, > > Hemant > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the > IETF. > > > Title : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between > Links and Subnet Prefixes > Author(s) : H. Singh, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2008-05-08 > > IPv6 specifies a model of a subnet that is different than the IPv4 > subnet model. The subtlety of the differences has resulted in incorrect > implementations that do not interoperate. This document spells out the > most important difference; that an IPv6 address isn't automatically > associated with an IPv6 on-link prefix. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00 > .txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
