At Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:33:53 +0200,
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [...]> Note also that MacOS is derived from BSD in case you don't
> > > > remember/know it. And, in fact it also generates both "fe80::1" and
> > > > "::1" on the "lo0" interface.
> > >
> > > Right, I forgot that.
> > >
> > > But there is something I never knew for sure.
> > >
> > > Are BSD flavors supporting OCB options?
> >
> > I don't know, but I don't think it matters here anyway:
>
> Maybe it matters, maybe it does not matter.
>
> If BSD does not support OCB, why should we write an IP-over-OCB spec
> along the lines of BSD which does not accept fe80:1::1 in the first place?
I don't get it. This sub-thread is not about fe80:1::1 but about
whether to assign an fe80 address on a loopback interface.
But to answer the question: because we don't know if that assumption
holds in future or we don't know if there are other platforms that
strictly assume the RFC4291 format but yet implement the IP-over-OCB
spec. We should either make IP-over-OCB compliant/consistent with
existing standards, or make it clear that IP-over-OCB makes an
exception to the existing standards by formally updating the latter.
That's, in my understanding, what a responsible spec author of an IETF
document is supposed to do, especially if they really respect the
concept of interoperability. And that's the point of my very first
message in this entire int-dir thread.
Frankly, I'm surprised to hear that an author of a would-be standards
track document says something like this:
> If BSD does not support OCB, why should we write an IP-over-OCB spec
> along the lines of BSD which does not accept fe80:1::1 in the first place?
To me, this sounds like the author saying they don't care about
interoperabitlity beyond the platforms they are interested in.
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [...]> Note also that MacOS is derived from BSD in case you don't
> > > > remember/know it. And, in fact it also generates both "fe80::1" and
> > > > "::1" on the "lo0" interface.
> > >
> > > Right, I forgot that.
> > >
> > > But there is something I never knew for sure.
> > >
> > > Are BSD flavors supporting OCB options?
> >
> > I don't know, but I don't think it matters here anyway:
>
> Maybe it matters, maybe it does not matter.
>
> If BSD does not support OCB, why should we write an IP-over-OCB spec
> along the lines of BSD which does not accept fe80:1::1 in the first place?
I don't get it. This sub-thread is not about fe80:1::1 but about
whether to assign an fe80 address on a loopback interface.
But to answer the question: because we don't know if that assumption
holds in future or we don't know if there are other platforms that
strictly assume the RFC4291 format but yet implement the IP-over-OCB
spec. We should either make IP-over-OCB compliant/consistent with
existing standards, or make it clear that IP-over-OCB makes an
exception to the existing standards by formally updating the latter.
That's, in my understanding, what a responsible spec author of an IETF
document is supposed to do, especially if they really respect the
concept of interoperability. And that's the point of my very first
message in this entire int-dir thread.
Frankly, I'm surprised to hear that an author of a would-be standards
track document says something like this:
> If BSD does not support OCB, why should we write an IP-over-OCB spec
> along the lines of BSD which does not accept fe80:1::1 in the first place?
To me, this sounds like the author saying they don't care about
interoperabitlity beyond the platforms they are interested in.
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
