Subject: [6lowpan] RFC4944 about EUI-64 "addresses"?

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:50:55 +0100

6LoWPANners,

I believe I have another complain about the RFC 4944.  Yes, we are not
modifying RFC4944 neither here nor now.

However, I have been referred to it several times while discussing the
current WG items.  For example, in private and in public I have been
told that RFC 4944 says "EUI-64 address".  Or, I am used to EUI-64 being
not an address but an identifier.

RFC 2464 mentions it as an "EUI-64 identifier", or "Interface
Identifier".  It never calls it an "EUI-64 address".

RFC 4944 mentions it as an "EUI-64 address" in some places:

rfc4944:
> All 802.15.4 devices have an IEEE EUI-64 address, but 16-bit short 
> addresses (Section 3 and Section 12) are also possible.
[...]
> Length:  This is the length of this option (including the type and 
> length fields) in units of 8 octets.  The value of this field is 2 if
> using EUI-64 addresses, or 1 if using 16-bit short addresses.

It's very difficult to understand it ok.

I am used for an address to be unique, otherwise it's not very good.
But an identifier is not necessarily unique, it's good, and it has that
g bit to distinguish it being unique or not.

Now that you read up to here, also understand my complain about RFC 4944
reading "short address".  Instead, I would like it to say "short MAC
address" throughout.  This would have saved me much misunderstandings in
many discussions in 6LoWPAN and RoLL.

Thank you,

Alex