Suresh,
Thanks very much for the review. As per your feedback, here are the
changes we are making to the draft.
1. This sentence at the end of section 1 will be changed from:
[Finally, this document merely restates and clarifies [RFC4861].]
to
[Finally, this document mainly restates and clarifies [RFC4861].]
2. Text of Bullet 3 in section 2 will change so that, as per your
request, we make it very explicit that this is a new rule. The old text
is shown below followed by new text.
[On-link determination SHOULD NOT persist across IPv6 interface
initializations. Note that section 5.7 of [RFC4862] describes
the use of stable storage for addresses acquired with stateless
address autoconfiguration with a note that the Preferred and
Valid Lifetimes must be retained if this approach is used.
However no RFC suggests or recommends retaining the on-link
prefixes.]
[On-link determination SHOULD NOT persist across IPv6 interface
initializations. Note that this is a new rule specified by this
document. Further, section 5.7 of [RFC4862] describes the use of
stable storage for addresses acquired with stateless address
autoconfiguration with a note that the Preferred and Valid
Lifetimes must be retained if this approach is used. However no
RFC suggests or recommends retaining the on-link prefixes.]
Regards.
Hemant
-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:57 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Erik Nordmark;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
