Hi Richard, Thank you for your report. I think this is better discussed in 6man.
But I think it is not an error. Section 5 describes "Embedded IPv4 Addresses" for mixed notation. IPv6 unspecified address and IPv6 loopback address are out of scope. Moreover, the 80-bit all-zeros prefix is not "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address". We should not use the 80-bit all-zeros prefix to identify embedded IPv4 addresses. I didn't understand what you mean. Please describe more detail. Regards, Masanobu > >The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5952, >"A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation". > >-------------------------------------- >You may review the report below and at: >http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5952&eid=2872 > >-------------------------------------- >Type: Technical >Reported by: Richard J. Smith <[email protected]> > >Section: 5 > >Original Text >------------- >For these addresses, mixed notation is RECOMMENDED if the following condition >is met: the address can be distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in >the lower 32 bits solely from the address field through the use of a >well-known prefix. > > >Corrected Text >-------------- >For these addresses, mixed notation is RECOMMENDED if the following conditions >are met: the address can be distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in >the lower 32 bits solely from the address field through the use of a >well-known prefix, and the entire address is not either the unspecified IPv6 >address "::" or the loopback IPv6 address "::1". > > >Notes >----- >RFC-4291 defines the 80-bit all-zeros prefix as indicating an "IPv4-compatible >IPv6 address". Without further clarification in section 5 of RFC-5952, the >recommended formatting of the IPv6 unspecified address would be "::0.0.0.0", >and the recommended formatting of the IPv6 loopback address would be >"::0.0.0.1". Neither of these recommended representations is desirable. > >Instructions: >------------- >This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > >-------------------------------------- >RFC5952 (draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-07) >-------------------------------------- >Title : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation >Publication Date : August 2010 >Author(s) : S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima >Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >Source : IPv6 Maintenance >Area : Internet >Stream : IETF >Verifying Party : IESG ยข(._.) ======================================== NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd. Product Development Department Masanobu Kawashima [email protected] http://www.necat.co.jp/ ======================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
