Hi, I generally support advancing this document, but I noticed an issue that should be resolved.
In Section 2.2.1. "IPv6 Use of Modified EUI‑64 Identifiers”. The contents is technically correct, but it should also mention that this type of IPv6 Interface Identifiers are no longer recommended. See RFC8064 "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers”. I think it would be better if text was added at the beginning of Section 2.2.1 that this approach is no longer recommended, include a reference to RFC8064, and say something that this is included for completeness (or similar wording). Bob > On May 4, 2023, at 11:17 PM, Wassim Haddad > <wassim.haddad=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Dear Intarea WG, > > This email starts an Intarea WG Last Call on draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-04 > (“IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 > Parameters”). > > A link to the draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis/> > > Please respond to this email to support the documents and/or send comments by > 05/20/2023. > > > Thanks, > Juan Carlos & Wassim > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
