Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES.
[Bert Wijnen]
Comment (2005-12-15)
!! Missing citation for Informative reference:
P007 L015: [RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
[Bill Fenner]
Comment (2005-12-15)
I'm glad to see documentation of design decisions (& changes thereto). I wish
there was more of this, so there could be less "What were they thinking in 2005
when they removed the on-link assumption!?" in 2010 ;-)
[Brian Carpenter]
Comment (2005-12-13)
Gen-ART review will be at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-03-dawkins.txt
[Ted Hardie]
Comment (2005-12-13)
I found Section 3.3 very hard to parse. This section, in particular:
The second option
might succeed in reaching a destination (assuming that one is
reachable) but is more complex to implement, and isn't guaranteed to
pick the correct destination. For example, there is still ambiguity
about which link to use if more than one node answers the
solicitations on multiple links.
In previous parts of Section 3, we seemed to be dealing with a host attempting
to send a packet using a known AAAA record. In this section, it's not clear
whether the argument is that a host with multiple interfaces has an interface
selection problem that is unresolvable because of on-link assumptions, or that
the on-link assumption again causes a poor ordering of attempts to reach a
host, or causes ambiguity because of non-globally unique addressing. Some
clarification would probably help here.
datatracker.ietf.org
