Subject: [dhcwg] FW: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:12:22 +0000

FYI – This may be of interest to DHC WG members.

See https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt.

  *   Bernie

From: v6ops <[email-masked]> on behalf of Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:19 PM
To: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

Hi Ted,

This contribution made us realize that perhaps a clarification would be useful: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg28040.html

Kind regards,

Job

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 at 20:17, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
The RFC doesn't say that anywhere in it.   There is no version of the draft that was published on 2/12/2016.   The -01 version of the draft was published in March of that year; the final version in July.   Can you please point out the place in the text where it says what you are saying it says?

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00 has just been posted as an ID.

It has recently been claimed that IETF best current practice is that
DHCPv6 is not recommended due to the recommendations section in
RFC7934/BCP204.

The relevant text was slipped into
draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05 on Feb 12, 2016, a couple of
days before the document went into IETF LC.  There was no discussion
about this text change either in the v6ops working group or at IETF
review or IESG level: perhaps the modification appeared innocuous or
maybe it just wasn't not noticed.

Next thing, there's a BCP which is being interpreted as meaning that
DHCPv6 is NOT RECOMMENDED for operational use.  Wow. :-)

This presents a variety of problems, the most serious of which are 1)
that a BCP is implying that the use of DHCPv6 was "NOT RECOMMENDED"
without extensive discussion or debate about this particular issue at
the relevant working group, and ignores the both the widespread use of
the protocol and its active development at the ietf, and 2) that a
change in the status of DHCPv6 to "NOT RECOMMENDED" leaves a huge hole
in the IPv6 host specification.

Job and I believe that this went through by mistake and that if the WG
had noticed the change at the time, consensus would never have been
reached on what is a serious semantic change to IETF lore.

Right now, the most prudent course of action would be to roll back the
change until a proper debate has been had.  We invite WG comments on
this doc.

Nick

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
> A new version of I-D, draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Nick Hilliard and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:         draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update
> Revision:     00
> Title:                Update for IPv6 Host Address Availability Recommendations
> Document date:        2017-07-17
> Group:                Individual Submission
> Pages:                4
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00
>
>
> Abstract:
>    The IPv6 Host Address Availability Recommendations Best Current
>    Practice (RFC 7934), describes why IPv6 hosts should use multiple
>    global addresses when attaching to a network.  This document updates
>    RFC 7934 by removing a recommendation for networks to give the host
>    the ability to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops