Subject: Node Requirement: New issue 5: Support for RFC 5006

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:32:13 -0600

I recieved a question:

What about RFC5006 "Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
or is it problem that it is of experimental category?

My feeling is that this is experimental, so it cannot really be a
requirement. 

What does the working group think?

https://trac.fit.nokia.com/ietf/ticket/5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:05:56 -0500

> What does the working group think?

Given that this is an Experimental spec, I would contend that we cannot 
include it as a requirement for nodes.  I think this holds for any 
Experimental specification.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:22:54 -0600

I agree with you and with James, so I will reject this issue - no
changes needed.

John 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Brian Haberman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 13 November, 2008 18:06
>To: Loughney John (Nokia-D/MtView)
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Node Requirement: New issue 5: Support for RFC 5006
>
>> What about RFC5006 "Router Advertisement Option for DNS 
>> Configuration", or is it problem that it is of experimental category?
>> 
>Given that this is an Experimental spec, I would contend that 
>we cannot include it as a requirement for nodes.  I think this 
>holds for any Experimental specification.
>
>Regards,
>Brian
>

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:15:56 +0200 (EET)

> I agree with you and with James, so I will reject this issue - no 

This is meant to be an Informational document, at least if the draft 
header is correct.  It does not provide any normative information what 
must or must not be implemented.  I view it more as a roadmap to a 
subset of IPv6-related RFCs.

As such I don't see a procedural problem in including RFC5006, if 
there is a case to be made that it is useful in some environment or 
should otherwise be in this document.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:39:03 -0800

The experimental designation is just wrong. We have to break the current
requirement to deploy both RA & DHCP if you want to have a working network.
Each model should be able to stand on its own, and 5006 fills a hole on that
side. The 'experiment' is simply there to placate those that want a
DHCP-only model. Change the status of the RFC & make it a node
requirement...

Tony

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Brian Haberman
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:06 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Configuration",

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:06:39 +1300

Has anyone reported implementation experience with 5006?
If so, we could discuss reclassifying it IMHO. But perhaps
we should separate that question from progressing the
node-req update.

   Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:48:33 +0200

Hi,

We have implemented RFC5006 internally and we tested the implementation
against publicly available RADVD.

Not included in our currently selling devices, though.

Best regards,

	Teemu

>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
>Behalf Of ext Brian E Carpenter
>Sent: 16 November, 2008 21:07
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: Loughney John (Nokia-D/MtView); 'Brian Haberman'; [email-masked]
>If so, we could discuss reclassifying it IMHO. But perhaps we 
>should separate that question from progressing the node-req update.
>
>   Brian
>
>> The experimental designation is just wrong. We have to break the 
>> current requirement to deploy both RA & DHCP if you want to 
>have a working network.
>> Each model should be able to stand on its own, and 5006 fills a hole 
>> on that side. The 'experiment' is simply there to placate those that 
>> want a DHCP-only model. Change the status of the RFC & make 
>it a node 
>> requirement...
>> 
>> Tony
>> 
>>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf 
>>> Of Brian Haberman
>>> Given that this is an Experimental spec, I would contend that we 
>>> cannot include it as a requirement for nodes.  I think this 
>holds for