On 17-Apr-19 04:30, 神明達哉 wrote: > At Tue, 16 Apr 2019 12:58:01 +0200, > Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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. Agreed. Brian
