Le 11/04/2019 à 13:38, Ole Troan a écrit :
I actually don't know if "this ipv6-over-80211ocb spec needs
to rely on the use of a non-0 value in the intermediate 54
bits", btw. If that's not the case, it's much safer and less
controversial to just not mention it (either in the form of "LL
prefix length" or more explicitly). I guess that's also what
others are suggesting (and I agree with them in that sense).
There is the option of being silent about the prefix length of IPv6
LLs in the IPv6-over-OCB document.
There is the option of mentioning "fe80::/10", but with "Updates
4291 section X" in the header of the 1st page.
There is the option of proving by implementation that fe80:1::1/32
on OCB is not harmful to others.
Two of these options will likely prohibit consensus being reqched on
this document. I encourage you to carefully consider how to best
spend your time and the time of the particpants in the involved set
of working groups.
YEs, thank you for the advice Ole. I need to take care how to spend my
time. Maybe try to avoid taking on directions that are known to be dead
ended.
I read your message as a warning that I take seriously. For that, I
would like to ask you whether you make this suggestion as a WG Chair of
6man WG? Or as a contributor to other WGs?
Alex
Ole
