Subject: Protocol Action: Default Address Selection for IPv6 to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:12:43 -0400

The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Default Address Selection for
IPv6' <draft-ietf-ipv6-default-addr-select-09.txt> as a Proposed
Standard.  This document is the product of the IP Version 6 Working
Group.  The IESG contact persons are Erik Nordmark and Thomas Narten.

Technical Summary
 
      In IPv6, a node may have multiple addresses. Consequently, when
      initiating a communication with a destination, there is a choice
      as to which destination address to use (if the destination has
      multiple addresses listed in the DNS) as well as to which source
      address to use (if the initiating node has multiple addresses).
      This document describes two algorithms, for source address selection
      and for destination address selection. The algorithms specify
      default behavior for all IPv6 implementations. They do not override
      choices made by applications or upper-layer protocols, nor do they
      preclude the development of more advanced mechanisms for address
      selection. The two algorithms share a common framework, including an
      optional mechanism for allowing administrators to provide policy
      that can override the default behavior. In dual stack
      implementations, the framework allows the destination address
      selection algorithm to consider both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses -
      depending on the available source addresses, the algorithm might
      prefer IPv6 addresses over IPv4 addresses, or vice-versa.

Working Group Summary
 
There was consenus in the WG for this document and no issues were
raised during the Last Call.

Protocol Quality
 
This document has been reviewed for the IESG by Thomas Narten.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:08:29 -0400

wow.  Having the document be approved by IESG is not a surprise, but
at the same time - the announcement is extremely misleading.

Serious problems with the entire idea of address selection were repeatedly 
raised in WG discussions.  At the very least this should have been reflected 
in the document announcement.

Keith

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:51:45 -0400

> in the document announcement.

I guess you might understand how this happened. The writeup that
eventually goes out is written up before the IESG actually formally
considers the document. At the time of the writing, there didn't seem
to be issues. :-)

Note that it was the IESG that raised some issues, and a side-effect
of that was that there was quite a lot of mailing list discussion on
the point you mention. So yes, the writeup is inaccurate and should
have been updated before going out. I.e., if I were writing it now, it
would say something like:

Working Group Summary
 
There was rough consenus in the WG for this document and no issues
were raised during the original Last Call. During IESG review, several
issues were raised, in particular the question of whether temporary
addresses should be chosen over public ones by default. Subsequent WG
discussion voiced general concerns about address selection and the
possible problems for applications that could result when IPv6 nodes
must chose among multiple addresses, whose long-term stability or
global usability cannot be depended on. This concern may be documented
in more detail in future documents.

Thomas

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:35:48 -0400

> considers the document. At the time of the writing, there didn't seem

you're right, that does make sense...  how soon I forget :)

thanks for reassuring me that this discussion did not get ignored.

Keith