Hi, deleting sections that seem resolved: On Apr 25, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > >>>> -- 1, paragraph 11: "This document does not update..." >>>> >>>> How is adding an alternative algorithm _not_ an update? >>> >>> Well, you still send an RS, receive an RA, and generate an IID. >>> >>> Me, I'd probably update RFC 4862, so that we make sure that folks >>> implementing SLAAC take a look at this document, but.... >> >> ...? >> >> (The reason you mention is one of the best reasons I can think of to >> call it an update--but if the working group consciously chose not to >> make it an update, I can live with it.) > > I'm not sure whether this was "consciously chosen" -- I will check with > a few folks about their thoughts (for the most part, I wouldn't want to > trigger a controversy just because of this). > > Point taken. [...] > > >>>> -- references: RFC1948 is obsoleted by 6528. Is there a reason to >>>> reference the obsolete version? >>> >>> Yes: RFC1948 is only referenced in the Acks section, where I note >>> that this document was inspired by Bellovin's work on RFC1948. >>> While RFC6528 obsoletes RFC1948, the algorithm in that RFC is the >>> same as that in RFC1948. >> >> So 6528 equally illustrates Steve Bellovin's work, and is also more >> current, right? > > Yes. But I'm a co-author of RFC 6528 -- so it'd be a bit arrogant (and > incorrect) to say that I was inspired by RFC 6528 :-) -- I was inspired > by Bellovin, rather than myself. :-) > Ah, I see your point :-)