I think the document is ready to go. Good that we finally can close the eternal u & g bit mess.
For the open issue in Section 7. I am also in favour of retaining the reserved IID registry. Then one or two nits. In Section 5. where changes to RFC4291 are listed I wonder why those new pieces of text do not use RFC2119 language. I recon RFC4291 does not use RFC2119 language but still this is going to be a new RFC that itself refers and uses RFC2119 language. - Jouni On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Bob Hinden <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing: > > Title : Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers > Author(s) : Brian Carpenter > Sheng Jiang > Filename : draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2013-05-24 > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-ug-01 > > as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments and statements of support for > advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial > suggestions can be sent to the author. This last call will end on 1 August > 2013. > > The chairs would also like to solicit a few people to do a detailed review of > this document. Please contact the chairs directly. > > Regards, > > Bob Hinden & Ole Trøan > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
