Subject: summary of WGLC for 2462bis and next step

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:33:26 +0900

The wg last call for draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-02.txt has ended.
I'll soon post a new revision of the draft mainly based on comments
sent during the last call, and I believe the new revision will be
ready to be submitted to the IESG.

For those who are interested, the current snap of the next revision is
available at:
  http://www.jinmei.org/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-03.txt

I'll do some editorial checks on it, and submit it by the final
submission cutoff on July 19.

(To make it sure I didn't miss anything) the comments/questions raised
in the last call period are as follows:

from itojun
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02996.html

from EricLKlein
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg03015.html

from Dan Lanciani
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg03019.html

from Suresh Krishnan
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg03022.html

I believe we've already agreed on what to do (or not to do) for the
comments.  The followings are a summary of expected changes in the
next revision:

   o  Clarified that it is IPv6 network operation that should be
      disabled on failure of Duplicate Address Detection, and that the
      rule should apply when the hardware address is supposed to be
      unique.
   o  Changed the reference on the algorithm of computing solicited-node
      multicast addresses to [RFC3513].
   o  Made the intent clearer in the clarification that unicasted NS or
      NA should be discarded during DAD.

In addition to them, I've updated the boilerplate to the latest one as
well as some minor editorial changes.

Finally, I've noticed there may be some possible issues, but right now
I don't think we need to do something on (one of) them (and thus they
cannot be a showstopper).  Those are:

- rfc2462bis will not support any form of the mixed host/router
  behavior.  While a similar issue for rfc2461bis is under discussion,
  I don't think we need to do anything for rfc2462bis at this stage on
  this.  In fact, I've confirmed this policy (i.e., not supporting the
  notion) several times on this list to be sure.

- how to address the IAB recommendation about the prefix length for
  starting with binary 000.  I've sent a question on this to the IAB
  (with my proposal):
    http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg03027.html
  but I've not seen any response to it.  Perhaps they are too busy as
  usual, but even if so, I don't think the lack of response is a
  showstopper at this stage.  If I actually needed to do something on
  this, the IESG will at least point it out.

- the current draft of rfc2462bis implicitly assumes that the prefix
  length for on-link determination (specified in rfc2461bis) can take
  an arbitrary value.  if rfc2461bis takes a different position on
  this, rfc2462bis will need to be modified on this.  But in my
  understanding rfc2461bis will be consistent with this assumption
  (even if not, the necessary modification to rfc2462bis would be
  minor)

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------