From 73fc0b38a0f6596be171741d83ae6782be5ebc7f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 09:22:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Streamline the text and add reference to RFC8064

---
 draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml | 11 +++++------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml b/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
index 4c8bca3..30bb126 100644
--- a/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
+++ b/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
@@ -67,11 +67,10 @@
     not apply to IPv6; but the arguments for operational flexibility in
     address allocation remain compelling.</t>
 
-    <t>It is also assumed that the reader understands IPv6, <xref
-    target="RFC2460"/>, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture, see <xref
-    target="RFC4291"/>, and the proposed changes to <xref
-    target="RFC4291"/>, see <xref
-    target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"/>.</t>
+    <t>It is also assumed that the reader understands IPv6 <xref
+    target="RFC2460"/>, the IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture <xref
+    target="RFC4291"/>, the proposed changes to RFC4291 <xref
+    target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"/>, and the recent recommendations for the generation of stable Interface Identifiers <xref target="RFC8064"/>.</t>
 
 <!--     
     <t>NOTE: do we mean 4291bis (currently moribund) or 2464bis?</t>
@@ -104,7 +103,7 @@ don't een need /64 for SLAAC, except for backward compatibility. (*)
 
     <t>Some confusion has been caused by the IP Version 6 Addressing
     Architecture, <xref target="RFC4291"/>, and the proposed changes in
-    <xref target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"/> with respect to the minimum subnet size</t>
+    <xref target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"/> with respect to the minimum subnet size.</t>
     
     <t>Meanwhile, link prefixes of varied lengths, /127, /126, /124,
     /120, ... /64 have been successfully deployed for many years.