Joe Touch wrote: > Again, this doc is about updating the IPv4 ID specification in RFC791 - > which has not yet been updated. But, the way you update rfc791 requires updating rfc2460, rfc2765 and their implementations, for which there is no consensus. That is, though your draft claims to "more closely reflect current practice" and "more closely match IPv6", the way you update rfc791 does not "reflect current practice" nor "match IPv6". As your draft states: it is clear that existing systems violate the current specification and rfc2026 states: 4.1.3 Internet Standard A specification for which significant implementation and successful operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the Internet Standard level. there is no point to insist on the ID uniqueness requirement of rfc791 as a requirement of an Internet Standard. > The IPv6-IPv4 translation that creates IPv4 IDs is currently > non-compliant with RFC791 and does not override RFC791. This document's > update might make that translation easier, Wrong. Insisting on rfc791 makes the translation a lot harder than just "closely reflect current practice" to loosen uniqueness request of rfc791, which is what almost all (if not all) the IPv4 and IPv6 implementations today are doing. > If you disagree with that conclusion, please contact the INTAREA WG > chairs directly. As we are in IETF last call stage, I can see no point you insist on the original conclusion of the WG, which overlooked the complication caused by 6->4 translation. Masataka Ohta