Re: Call for RFC 3041 Implementation Reports
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Call for RFC 3041 Implementation Reports



Sorry for the delay in response...

On Aug 25, 2005, at 0:59, JINMEI Tatuya / ¿ 癆 明達哉 wrote:

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 05:20:25 -0400,
Brian Haberman <brian at innovationslab.net> said:

As mentioned during the IPv6 WG meeting, the chairs are soliciting
implementation reports for IPv6 Privacy Addresses in support of moving
the spec
to Draft Standard. The following template should be used for submitting
these implementation reports. The reports can be sent to the chairs
and/or
the mailing list.

(snip)

6. Tested Interoperability by Feature:

A. Lifetime Management (Section 3.4)

B. DAD Operation (Section 3.2)

I'm not sure what "interoperability" should be reported about those...as far as I understand, these are only a matter of the host using RFC3041, and I don't see any "interoperability" issue here. Could you clarify the required information?

I was envisioning a validation that the node using RFC 3041 addresses perform DAD for those addresses and peers cannot detect any differences in messaging/processing.


Regarding DAD, which specification should be the base of the report, RFC3041 or draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-04.txt? (The behavior on this is very different between these two versions of the spec).

These are implementation reports for 3041, so the basis should be the RFC.


In either case, I suspect "Section 3.2" should actually be "Section 3.3" (more specifically, Step 7 of Section 3.3). In fact, neither RFC3041 or privacy-addrs mentions DAD in Section 3.2 as a part of the protocol specification.



Correct.  My mistake in typing the message.

Regards,
Brian

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.