A separate draft to fix this up sounds reasonable. Presumably this would be an update to RFC 5453.
Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Donald, > Changing subject as this issue is orthogonal to the draft being last > called. > > On 11-09-22 07:49 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> Hi Suresh, >> ... >> It's absurd for these registries to be operated so that they can get >> out of sync and so that conflicting uses can be allocated for the same >> EUI / derived-IID. The IANA Considerations for these registries should >> be updated, if necessary, so that can't happen. I believe that the EUI >> registry is, in some vague small sense, more fundamental because you >> can do a variety of different things with an EUI, not just create an >> IID. >> >> Maybe the IID registry should also be updated to show the ranges of >> IIDs automatically available to EUI holders... > > I agree that the IID registry should list the IID ranges automatically > available to holders of reserved EUIs from the IANA range. We can > probably put together a short draft just to do that. > > Thanks > Suresh > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
