Adding to what Joel said, why are we attempting to define how long a MAC address SHOULD be? -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:39 AM To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <int-dir@xxxxxxxx> <int-dir@xxxxxxxx>; IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; its@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: 118 Trimmed. On 4/17/19 3:46 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: .... > > I propose the following: > OLD: >> A randomized Interface ID has the same characteristics of a >> randomized MAC address, except the length in bits. A MAC >> address SHOULD be of length 48 decimal. 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. > > NEW: >> A randomized Interface ID has the same characteristics of a >> randomized MAC address, except the length in bits. A MAC >> address SHOULD be of length 48 decimal. An Interface ID >> SHOULD be of length specified in other documents. > > Do you disagree? "SHOULD be of a length specified in other documents" wihtout any reference to what the other documents are or how to find them seems like a recipe for implementor error. Can we be somewhat more specific? Thank you, Joel
