Subject: [6MAN] Request for review: draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-04

From: Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:36:37 -0700

Hello 6man,

In the upcoming IETF 104 meeting, we'll be discussing our document on the RA option for discovering Provisioning Domains (PvDs) in INTAREA (meeting in the last Thursday afternoon slot). While we won't have time in the 6man meeting agenda to present, we do kindly request that members of 6man who are interested please review the document, and provide their thoughts to the authors at the meeting or on the list. We'd like to target WGLC soon, so any and all feedback is welcome and appreciated.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains/
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-04

Best,
Tommy (& co-authors)

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:19:56 +0100

Tommy,

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-04

The PVD RA container option seems to be a good candidate for using
draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option.

Support for it, is already in the draft. ;-)

Cheers,
Ole

---

From: Sander Steffann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:59:08 +0100

Hi,

> Op 26 mrt. 2019, om 10:19 heeft Ole Troan <[email-masked]> het volgende geschreven:
> 

I like this idea :)
Sander

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:25:35 +0100

Random thought.

Instead of zero-ing out the type+code+checksum of the inner RA message
header if present, why not just leave most of it alone?

If I might suggest:

    Type MUST be 134
    Code MUST be 0
    Checksum MUST be 0; non-zero checksums MUST be ignored by the receiver.

Separately, would it be good to say that PvD HTTPS contents might be
served as applicaton/pvd+json OR application/pvd+cbor?  I quite like
Ole's CDDL specification style, and I also think we might want reserve
some space for "ietf" designated standard things.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 20:36, Tommy Pauly
<tpauly=[email-masked]> wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:13:37 +0100

Furthermore, I think that mentioning/recommending X-Foo is contrary to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 and we probably don't want to do
that.

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:52:47 +0100

>  I quite like

There is a discussion on the universal RA option in 6man tomorrow morning at 9.
It would be good if the pvd authors could chime in there.

With the level of ‘crud’ in the proposed RA option, that seems like a nice use case for universal RA option.

Cheers,
Ole