< draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-04.txt		draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-05.txt >
	IPv6 Maintenance Working Group S. Kawamura		IPv6 Maintenance Working Group S. Kawamura
	Internet-Draft NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.		Internet-Draft NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
	Intended status: Standards Track M. Kawashima		Updates: 4291 (if approved) M. Kawashima
	Expires: July 18, 2010 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.		Intended status: Standards Track NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
	January 14, 2010		Expires: August 21, 2010 February 17, 2010
	A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation		A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
	draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-04		draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	As IPv6 network grows, there will be more engineers and also non-		As IPv6 network grows, there will be more engineers and also non-
	engineers who will have the need to use an IPv6 address in text.		engineers who will have the need to use an IPv6 address in text.
	While the IPv6 address architecture RFC 4291 section 2.2 depicts a		While the IPv6 address architecture RFC 4291 section 2.2 depicts a
	flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this		flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this
	flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system		flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system
	engineers, and users. This document will describe the problems that		engineers, and users. This document will describe the problems that
	a flexible text representation has been causing. This document also		a flexible text representation has been causing. This document also
	skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2010.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2010.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 3, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 43 ¶
	3.4.3. Legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.4.3. Legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation . . . . . . . . 9		4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation . . . . . . . . 9
	4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field . . . . . . . . . 10		4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2. "::" Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2. "::" Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.3. Lower Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.3. Lower Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5. Text Representation of Special Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5. Text Representation of Special Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers . . . . . 11		6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers . . . . . 11
	7. Prefix Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7. Prefix Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Appendix A. For Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Appendix A. For Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	A single IPv6 address can be text represented in many ways. Examples		A single IPv6 address can be text represented in many ways. Examples
	are shown below.		are shown below.
	2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1		2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1
	skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶
	2001:db8::0:1:0:0:1		2001:db8::0:1:0:0:1
	2001:0db8::1:0:0:1		2001:0db8::1:0:0:1
	2001:db8:0:0:1::1		2001:db8:0:0:1::1
	2001:db8:0000:0:1::1		2001:db8:0000:0:1::1
	2001:DB8:0:0:1::1		2001:DB8:0:0:1::1
	All the above point to the same IPv6 address. This flexibility has		All the above represent the same IPv6 address. This flexibility has
	caused many problems for operators, systems engineers, and customers.		caused many problems for operators, systems engineers, and customers.
	The problems will be noted in Section 3. Also, a canonical		The problems will be noted in Section 3. Also, a canonical
	representation format to avoid problems will be introduced in		representation format to avoid problems will be introduced in
	Section 4.		Section 4.
	1.1. Requirements Language		1.1. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	skipping to change at page 5, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 25 ¶
	'A special syntax is available to compress the zeros. The use of		'A special syntax is available to compress the zeros. The use of
	"::" indicates one or more groups of 16 bits of zeros.'		"::" indicates one or more groups of 16 bits of zeros.'
	It is possible to select whether or not to omit just one 16 bits of		It is possible to select whether or not to omit just one 16 bits of
	zeros.		zeros.
	2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::1		2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::1
	2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:0:1		2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:0:1
	In case where there are more than one zero fields, there is a choice		In case where there is more than one zero fields, there is a choice
	of how many fields can be shortened. Examples follow.		of how many fields can be shortened. Examples follow.
	2001:db8:0:0:0::1		2001:db8:0:0:0::1
	2001:db8:0:0::1		2001:db8:0:0::1
	2001:db8:0::1		2001:db8:0::1
	2001:db8::1		2001:db8::1
	skipping to change at page 7, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 12 ¶
	would think that their input was wrong, and will likely retry several		would think that their input was wrong, and will likely retry several
	times or make a frustrated call to the database hostmaster. If there		times or make a frustrated call to the database hostmaster. If there
	was a need to register the same address on different systems, and		was a need to register the same address on different systems, and
	each system showed a different text representation, this would		each system showed a different text representation, this would
	confuse people even more. Although this document focuses on		confuse people even more. Although this document focuses on
	addresses rather than prefixes, this is worth mentioning since		addresses rather than prefixes, this is worth mentioning since
	problems encountered are mostly equal.		problems encountered are mostly equal.
	3.1.4. Searching for an Address in a Network Diagram		3.1.4. Searching for an Address in a Network Diagram
	Network diagrams and blue-prints contain IP addresses as allocated to		Network diagrams and blue-prints often show what IP addresses are
	system devices. In times of trouble shooting, there may be a need to		assigned to a system devices. In times of trouble shooting, there
	search through a diagram to find the point of failure (for example,		may be a need to search through a diagram to find the point of
	if a traceroute stopped at 2001:db8::1, one would search the diagram		failure (for example, if a traceroute stopped at 2001:db8::1, one
	for that address). This is a technique quite often in use in		would search the diagram for that address). This is a technique
	enterprise networks and managed services. Again, the different		quite often in use in enterprise networks and managed services.
	flavors of text representation will result in a time-consuming		Again, the different flavors of text representation will result in a
	search, leading to longer MTTR in times of trouble.		time-consuming search, leading to longer MTTR in times of trouble.
	3.2. Parsing and Modifying		3.2. Parsing and Modifying
	3.2.1. General Summary		3.2.1. General Summary
	With all the possible text representation ways, each application must		With all the possible text representation ways, each application must
	include a module, object, link, etc. to a function that will parse		include a module, object, link, etc. to a function that will parse
	IPv6 addresses in a manner that no matter how it is represented, they		IPv6 addresses in a manner that no matter how it is represented, they
	will mean the same address. This is not too much a problem if the		will mean the same address. Many system engineers who integrate
	output is to be just 'read' or 'managed' by a network engineer.		complex computer systems to corporate customers will have
	However, many system engineers who integrate complex computer systems		difficulties finding that their favorite tool will not have this
	to corporate customers will have difficulties finding that their		function, or will encounter difficulties such as having to rewrite
	favorite tool will not have this function, or will encounter		their macro's or scripts for their customers.
	difficulties such as having to rewrite their macro's or scripts for
	their customers.
	3.2.2. Logging		3.2.2. Logging
	If an application were to output a log summary that represented the		If an application were to output a log summary that represented the
	address in full (such as 2001:0db8:0000:0000:1111:2222:3333:4444),		address in full (such as 2001:0db8:0000:0000:1111:2222:3333:4444),
	the output would be highly unreadable compared to the IPv4 output.		the output would be highly unreadable compared to the IPv4 output.
	The address would have to be parsed and reformed to make it useful		The address would have to be parsed and reformed to make it useful
	for human reading. Sometimes, logging for critical systems is done		for human reading. Sometimes, logging for critical systems is done
	by mirroring the same traffic to two different systems. Care must be		by mirroring the same traffic to two different systems. Care must be
	taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be		taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be
	skipping to change at page 8, line 6 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 4 ¶
	taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be		taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be
	parsed so they will mean the same.		parsed so they will mean the same.
	3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1		3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1
	When a router or any other network appliance machine configuration is		When a router or any other network appliance machine configuration is
	audited, there are many methods to compare the configuration		audited, there are many methods to compare the configuration
	information of a node. Sometimes, auditing will be done by just		information of a node. Sometimes, auditing will be done by just
	comparing the changes made each day. In this case, if configuration		comparing the changes made each day. In this case, if configuration
	was done such that 2001:db8::1 was changed to 2001:0db8:0000:0000:		was done such that 2001:db8::1 was changed to 2001:0db8:0000:0000:
	0000:0000:0000:0001 just because the new engineer on the block felt		0000:0000:0000:0001 just because the new engineer on the block felt
	it was better, a simple diff will tell you that a different address		it was better, a simple diff will show that a different address was
	was configured. If this was done on a wide scale network, people		configured. If this was done on a wide scale network, people will be
	will be focusing on 'why the extra zeros were put in' instead of		focusing on 'why the extra zeros were put in' instead of doing any
	doing any real auditing. Lots of tools are just plain 'diff's that		real auditing. Lots of tools are just plain 'diff's that do not take
	do not take into account address representation rules.		into account address representation rules.
	3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2		3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2
	Node configurations will be matched against an information system		Node configurations will be matched against an information system
	that manages IP addresses. If output notation is different, there		that manages IP addresses. If output notation is different, there
	will need to be a script that is implemented to cover for this. The		will need to be a script that is implemented to cover for this. The
	result of an SNMP GET operation, converted to text and compared to a		result of an SNMP GET operation, converted to text and compared to a
	textual address written by a human is highly unlikely to match on		textual address written by a human is highly unlikely to match on
	first try.		first try.
	skipping to change at page 10, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 50 ¶
	Capital case D and 0 can be quite often misread. Capital B and 8 can		Capital case D and 0 can be quite often misread. Capital B and 8 can
	also be misread.		also be misread.
	4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation		4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation
	A recommendation for a canonical text representation format of IPv6		A recommendation for a canonical text representation format of IPv6
	addresses is presented in this section. The recommendation in this		addresses is presented in this section. The recommendation in this
	document is one that, complies fully with [RFC4291], is implemented		document is one that, complies fully with [RFC4291], is implemented
	by various operating systems, and is human friendly. The		by various operating systems, and is human friendly. The
	recommendation in this document SHOULD be followed by systems when		recommendation in this section SHOULD be followed by systems when
	generating an address to represent as text, but all implementations		generating an address to represent as text, but all implementations
	MUST accept any legitimate [RFC4291] format. It is advised that		MUST accept and be able to handle any legitimate [RFC4291] format.
	humans also follow these recommendations when spelling an address.		It is advised that humans also follow these recommendations when
			spelling an address.
	4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field		4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field
	Leading zeros should be chopped for human legibility and easier		Leading zeros MUST be suppressed. For example 2001:0db8::0001 is not
	searching. Also, a single 16 bit 0000 field should be represented as		acceptable and must be represented as 2001:db8::1. A single 16 bit
	just 0.		0000 field MUST be represented as 0.
	4.2. "::" Usage		4.2. "::" Usage
	4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible		4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible
	The use of "::" should be used to its maximum capability (i.e. 2001:		The use of symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability. For
	db8::0:1 is not considered as clean representation).		example, 2001:db8::0:1 is not acceptable, because the symbol "::"
			could have been used to produce a shorter representation 2001:db8::1.
	4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field		4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field
	"::" should not be used to shorten just one 16 bit 0 field for it		The symbol "::" MUST NOT be used to shorten just one 16 bit 0 field.
	would tend to mislead that there are more than one 16 bit field that		For example, the representation 2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1 is correct, but
	is shortened.		2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1 is not correct.
	4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::"		4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::"
	When there is an alternative choice in the placement of a "::", the		When there is an alternative choice in the placement of a "::", the
	longest run of consecutive 16 bit 0 fields should be shortened (i.e.		longest run of consecutive 16 bit 0 fields MUST be shortened (i.e.
	latter is shortened in 2001:0:0:1:0:0:0:1). When the length of the		the sequence with three consecutive zero fields is shortened in 2001:
	consecutive 16 bit 0 fields are equal (i.e. 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1),		0:0:1:0:0:0:1). When the length of the consecutive 16 bit 0 fields
	the former is shortened. This is consistent with many current		are equal (i.e. 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1), the first sequence of zero
	implementations. One idea to avoid any confusion, is for the		bits MUST be shortened. For example 2001:db8::1:0:0:1 is correct
	operator to not use 16 bit field 0 in the first 64 bits. By nature		representation.
	IPv6 addresses are usually assigned or allocated to end-users from a
	prefix of 32 bits or longer (typically 48 bits or longer).
	4.3. Lower Case		4.3. Lower Case
	Recent implementations tend to represent IPv6 address as lower case.		The characters "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f" in an IPv6 address MUST
	It is better to use lower case to avoid problems such as described in		be represented in lower case.
	section 3.3.3 and 3.4.3.
	5. Text Representation of Special Addresses		5. Text Representation of Special Addresses
	Addresses such as IPv4-Mapped IPv6 addresses, ISATAP [RFC5214], and		Addresses such as IPv4-Mapped IPv6 addresses, ISATAP [RFC5214], and
	IPv4-translatable addresses [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] have		IPv4-translatable addresses [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] have
	IPv4 addresses embedded in the low-order 32 bits of the address.		IPv4 addresses embedded in the low-order 32 bits of the address.
	These addresses have special representation that may mix hexadecimal		These addresses have special representation that may mix hexadecimal
	and dot decimal notations. The decimal notation may be used only for		and dot decimal notations. The decimal notation may be used only for
	the last 32 bits of the address. For these addresses, mixed notation		the last 32 bits of the address. For these addresses, mixed notation
	is recommended if the following condition is met: The address can be		is RECOMMENDED if the following condition is met: The address can be
	distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits		distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits
	solely from the address field through the use of a well known prefix.		solely from the address field through the use of a well known prefix.
	If it is known by some external method that a given prefix includes		Such prefixes are defined in [RFC4291] and [RFC5214] at the time of
	an IPv4 address, it MAY be represented as mixed notation. Tools that		writing. If it is known by some external method that a given prefix
	provide options to specify prefixes that is (or is not) to be		includes an IPv4 address, it MAY be represented as mixed notation.
	represented as mixed notation may be useful.		Tools that provide options to specify prefixes that is (or is not) to
			be represented as mixed notation may be useful.
			There is a trade-off here where a recommendation to achieve exact
			match in a search (no dot decimals whatsoever) and recommendation to
			help the readability of an addresses (dot decimal whenever possible)
			does not result in the same solution. The above recommendation is
			aimed at fixing the representation as much as possible while leaving
			the opportunity for future well known prefixes to be represented in a
			human friendly manner as tools adjust to newly assigned prefixes.
	The text representation method noted in Section 4 should be applied		The text representation method noted in Section 4 should be applied
	for the leading hexadecimal part (i.e. ::ffff:192.0.2.1 instead of		for the leading hexadecimal part (i.e. ::ffff:192.0.2.1 instead of
	0:0:0:0:0:ffff:192.0.2.1).		0:0:0:0:0:ffff:192.0.2.1).
	6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers		6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers
	When IPv6 addresses and port numbers are represented in text combined		When IPv6 addresses and port numbers are represented in text combined
	together, there are many different ways to do so. Examples are shown		together, there are many different ways to do so. Examples are shown
	below.		below.
	skipping to change at page 11, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 46 ¶
	o 2001:db8::1.80		o 2001:db8::1.80
	o 2001:db8::1 port 80		o 2001:db8::1 port 80
	o 2001:db8::1p80		o 2001:db8::1p80
	o 2001:db8::1#80		o 2001:db8::1#80
	The situation is not much different in IPv4, but the most ambiguous		The situation is not much different in IPv4, but the most ambiguous
	case with IPv6 is the second bullet. This is due to the "::"usage in		case with IPv6 is the second bullet. This is due to the "::"usage in
	IPv6 addresses. This style is not recommended for its ambiguity.		IPv6 addresses. This style is NOT RECOMMENDED for its ambiguity.
	The [] style as expressed in [RFC3986] should be employed, and is the		The [] style as expressed in [RFC3986] SHOULD be employed, and is the
	default unless otherwise specified. Other styles are acceptable when		default unless otherwise specified. Other styles are acceptable when
	there is exactly one style for the given context and cross-platform		there is exactly one style for the given context and cross-platform
	portability does not become an issue.		portability does not become an issue. For URIs, [RFC3986] MUST be
			followed.
	7. Prefix Representation		7. Prefix Representation
	Problems with prefixes are just the same as problems encountered with		Problems with prefixes are just the same as problems encountered with
	addresses. Text representation method of IPv6 prefixes should be no		addresses. Text representation method of IPv6 prefixes should be no
	different from that of IPv6 addresses.		different from that of IPv6 addresses.
	8. Conclusion		8. Security Considerations
	The recommended format of text representing an IPv6 address is
	summarized as follows.
	(1) omit leading zeros in a 16 bit field
	(2) when using "::", shorten consecutive zero fields to their
	maximum extent (leave no zero fields behind).
	(3) "::" used where shortens address the most
	(4) "::" used in the former part in case of a tie breaker
	(5) do not shorten one 16 bit 0 field, but always shorten when
	there are two or more consecutive 16 bit 0 fields
	(6) use lower case
	Hints for developers are written in the Appendix section.
	9. Security Considerations
	None.		This document notes on some examples where IPv6 addresses are
			compared in text format. The example on Section 3.2.5 is one that
			may cause a security risk if used for access control. The common
			practice of comparing X.509 data is done in binary format.
	10. IANA Considerations		9. IANA Considerations
	None.		None.
	11. Acknowledgements		10. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Jan Zorz, Randy Bush, Yuichi Minami,		The authors would like to thank Jan Zorz, Randy Bush, Yuichi Minami,
	Toshimitsu Matsuura for their generous and helpful comments in kick		Toshimitsu Matsuura for their generous and helpful comments in kick
	starting this document. We also would like to thank Brian Carpenter,		starting this document. We also would like to thank Brian Carpenter,
	Akira Kato, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Antonio Querubin, Dave Thaler,		Akira Kato, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Antonio Querubin, Dave Thaler,
	Brian Haley, Suresh Krishnan, Jerry Huang, Roman Donchenko, Heikki		Brian Haley, Suresh Krishnan, Jerry Huang, Roman Donchenko, Heikki
	Vatiainen ,Dan Wing for their input. Also a very special thanks to		Vatiainen ,Dan Wing for their input. Also a very special thanks to
	Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Brian Haberman, Robert Hinden, Jari Arkko,		Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Brian Haberman, Robert Hinden, Jari Arkko,
	and Kurt Lindqvist for their support in bringing this document to the		and Kurt Lindqvist for their support in bringing this document to the
	light of IETF working groups.		light of IETF working groups.
	12. References		11. References
	12.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing		[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
	Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.		Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
	12.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]		[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
	Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.		Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
	Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",		Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
	draft-ietf-behave-address-format-03 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-behave-address-format-04 (work in progress),
	December 2009.		January 2010.
	[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform		[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
	Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,		Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
	RFC 3986, January 2005.		RFC 3986, January 2005.
	[RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E.		[RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E.
	Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",		Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",
	RFC 4038, March 2005.		RFC 4038, March 2005.
	[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site		[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
End of changes. 29 change blocks.
	95 lines changed or deleted		84 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/