Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

[David Farmer <farmer@xxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:51 AM, tom p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farmer" <farmer@xxxxxxx>
>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>    and including 128 [BCP198].  However, subnet prefixes of 64 bits in
>    length are REQUIRED for use with Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration
>    (SLAAC)[RFC4862] and are RECOMMENDED for all other general purpose
>    use. The rationale for the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be
>    found in [RFC7421].

David

Note that 4291bis does not use the language of RFC2119 and does not even
include a reference to it.

This reflects the consensus of the WG; to introduce such language now
would, IMHO, open up another can of worms.  It would beg the question as
to why this one paragraph, or set of paragraphs, use this language when
all the others do not.  That is, it will cause us to discuss all the
other places where such language might have been used but was not; 10,
20 50 ...   Well, at a quick glance, I reckon there are about 60 such
places, 60 more discussions?

Tom Petch

Yep, I'm aware.  I would nuance the WG's consensus a little, I think it was most people thought there were bigger fish to fry than to make all those changes, but basically it boils down to the same thing.  I'm not trying to relitigate it either, it's just the style I prefer to use. If the text I'm proposing makes it into the document, I fully expect and support the document's editor munging the text into the document's style. 

Thanks.

--

===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@xxxxxxx
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota  
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================