At Tue, 16 Apr 2019 12:58:01 +0200,
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Not quite, because it also says
> >
> > " An Interface ID SHOULD be of length
> > 64 decimal for all types of IPv6 addresses. In the particular case
> > of IPv6 link-local addresses, the length of the Interface ID MAY be
> > 118 decimal."
> >
> > which conflicts with RFC4291.
>
> True. I forgot that 118. Thank you for pointing to it.
>
> Remark, it says MAY, not MUST.
>
> Do you stronly disagree with 118? I can remove the phrase containing
> it, if so. I can also remove the entire cited text altogether, such
> that to be silent about the length of the Interface ID.
(Speaking for myself who just happenned to notice it - I overlooked this
118, too). I'd say it's more consistent with the removal of "fe80::/10"
if we simply remove "In the particular case of IPv6 link-local
addresses..." sentence. If it really has to stay here, it will
inevitably need to be an update to RFC4291 and need to pass that high
bar (quite likely delaying the publication substantially, if not
making it fail). Unless that's absolutely necessary for this protocol
specification, it's much safer not to discuss that in this document.
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Not quite, because it also says
> >
> > " An Interface ID SHOULD be of length
> > 64 decimal for all types of IPv6 addresses. In the particular case
> > of IPv6 link-local addresses, the length of the Interface ID MAY be
> > 118 decimal."
> >
> > which conflicts with RFC4291.
>
> True. I forgot that 118. Thank you for pointing to it.
>
> Remark, it says MAY, not MUST.
>
> Do you stronly disagree with 118? I can remove the phrase containing
> it, if so. I can also remove the entire cited text altogether, such
> that to be silent about the length of the Interface ID.
(Speaking for myself who just happenned to notice it - I overlooked this
118, too). I'd say it's more consistent with the removal of "fe80::/10"
if we simply remove "In the particular case of IPv6 link-local
addresses..." sentence. If it really has to stay here, it will
inevitably need to be an update to RFC4291 and need to pass that high
bar (quite likely delaying the publication substantially, if not
making it fail). Unless that's absolutely necessary for this protocol
specification, it's much safer not to discuss that in this document.
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
