[manet] Re: [IPv6]Re: Requesting 6MAN adoption for " IPv6 Address for Ad Hoc Networks"

Eric, thank you for your input and see below for responses:

Fred

From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 11:13 PM
To: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; IPv6 List <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IPv6]Re: Requesting 6MAN adoption for "IPv6 Address for Ad Hoc Networks"

[posting this as an individual contributor, i.e., “no hat”]

Fred,

I quickly browsed through your I-D and have some suggestions:
- please run idnits and fix all the issues

> OK.

- add some explanations about what an “ad hoc network” is rather than referring to a MANET RFC

> I will add some explanation in my document and also refer specifically to RFC5889 which is
> not a MANET RFC but rather the IETF published reference of what is meant by “Ad Hoc Network”

- the multilink is puzzling to me, does it mean that the same MLA is assigned to all interfaces of a node ?

> It means that the same MLA is assigned to all interfaces of a node connected to the same Ad Hoc
> network. If the node connects to multiple Ad Hoc networks, it must assign a different MLA to its
> interface connections to networks A, B, C, etc.

(hence the scope is required as for LLA) if so why LLA are not sufficient ?

> Yes, scope is required for a scope greater than link-local. RFC5889, Section 6.1 explains why
> LLAs are not sufficient.

- in section 4, you cannot simply `the RFC Editor is instructed to update [RFC4007] and [RFC5889] to reflect this new address type` ;-)
> What do you suggest here?

- the IANA considerations should really be more specific, especially around ` prefix length N that is short enough to ensure ample statistical address uniqueness`

> I don’t know how to be more specific without referring to specific candidate prefixes. Earlier
> versions of this document included candidate prefixes but I was asked to remove those.
> Again, what do you suggest here?

Hope this helps improving your draft and hence perhaps facilitate its adoption

Regards

-éric

From: Bob Hinden <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, 16 August 2024 at 21:15
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, IPv6 List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [IPv6]Re: Requesting 6MAN adoption for "IPv6 Address for Ad Hoc Networks"
Fred,

Request received.  The chairs will discuss.

BTW, Appendix A. Change Log is missing all of the changes from versions 1-23.

Bob


> On Aug 16, 2024, at 12:00 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> "IPv6 Addresses for Ad Hoc Networks" has been updated:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-mla/
>
> Updates include clarification of the need for "topology-independent"
> (in contrast to "topology-oriented") addresses and options for both
> self-generated and attestation service-coordinated MLA sub-types.
>
> 6MAN chairs - please initiate a WG adoption call for this document.
>
> Fred Templin
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]