Hi Bob, OK, I'll make the changes with your further suggestions.
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:42 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Donald, > > On May 9, 2023, at 6:37 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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). > > Thanks for this cogent comment. > > How about adding the following sentence as a new first paragraph in > Section 2.2.1: "The approach described below for constructing IPv6 is now > deprecated and the method specified in [RFC8064] is RECOMMENDED." > > > Yes, that is good. Suggest s/constructing IPv6/constructing IPv6 > Interface Identifiers/ > > > Also changing the beginning of the following text as follows > OLD > > UI‑64 identifiers are used to form the lower 64 bits of some > > NEW > > UI‑64 identifiers have been used to form the lower 64 bits of some > > > Good. Similar change in Section 2.2 would also be good. > > Bob > > > > > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > d3e...@gmail.com > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > d3e...@gmail.com > > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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/ >> >> 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 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> Int-area@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> > >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
