Subject: rfc4941bis: Requirements

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 10:23:43 +0200

Folks,

Another specific aspect of rfc4941bis that requires input is
*where* we codify the requirements for temporary addresses.

Right now, the requirements for temporary addresses are in a separate
document (draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids). This parallels what we did
for stable addresses (the requirements in RFC8064, and a specific
solution in RFC7217).

However, there was a suggestion that the requirements be incorporated
into RFC4941, so that we'd have everything (requirements + specific
solution) in a single document.

The advantage of having a single document is probably "fewer documents
to work on". On the other had, having the requirements in a separate
document more clearly separates the requirements for temporary addresses
from the details of specific solutions, and also parallels what we did
for stable addresses.

So I guess the possible outcomes would be:

1) Incorporate the requirements from draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids
into rfc4941bis.

2) Keep the requirements for temporary addresses in a separate document
(draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids) -- and have the wg make a decision
regarding whether to work on it.

3) Do not incorporate requirements into rfc4941bis, and leave the
requirements stuff (draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids) at its own faith --
strictly speaking, this *is* an option (that's why I'm listing it
here)... but it would mean that some of the issues in RFC4941 would
remain unaddressed.. making it a "no go".

FWIW, I'd prefer #2, but could live with #1. (Option #3, as mentioned,
would seem to me a be very bad outcome.)

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:07:01 +0300

This isn’t new work. The work on 4941bis is to fix a few bugs. Therefore I have a hard time seeing value in publishing a new requirements document.  I.e your option 3. 

The background material in the req doc is largely in 7721 / 4941 already, and 4941bis can of course incorporate what’s missing. Likewise for requirements which if missing can be added perhaps as goals to 4941bis. 

But I at least would very much like to see 4941bis as a bug fix, not as an entirely rewritten document. 

Ole

> On 3 Jul 2018, at 11:23, Fernando Gont <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:04:20 +0200

Ole,

On 07/03/2018 11:07 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> This isn’t new work. The work on 4941bis is to fix a few bugs.
> Therefore I have a hard time seeing value in publishing a new
> requirements document.  I.e your option 3.
> 
> The background material in the req doc is largely in 7721 / 4941
> already, and 4941bis can of course incorporate what’s missing.
> Likewise for requirements which if missing can be added perhaps as
> goals to 4941bis.
> 

For the most part, the set of requirements are essentially the
guidelines that fix the bugs in rfc4941. (e.g. do not employ the same
IID for multiple prefixes, or generate a new IID when there's a
security-meaningful event -- other than just as a function of time).
What's in the requirements document is those things, spelled out, and
explained.

*Some* of the things in the requirements document are noted elsewhere.
But clearly it's not easy to figure out the properties from those
documents. I guess the same thing you're saying about the requirements
document could be said for RFC8064 (modulo the fact that besides
specifying requirements, it also recommends RFC7217).

In any case, the reason I started this particular thread is exactly to
hear from the group about it.

Thanks,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 15:56:29 +1200

>> as an entirely rewritten document.

+1 to that.

> What's in the requirements document is those things, spelled out, and

That sounds like an Appendix to 4941bis to me: then it can be self-
contained, and not impact the main body of 4941bis being a bug
fix to 4941, as Ole says.

    Brian