Re: [6lo] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-16: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

I am okay with the changes .

Thanks,
-Samita

From: 6lo [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 1:32 PM
To: Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>; Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Gabriel Montenegro <[e-mail]>
Subject: [E] Re: [6lo] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-16: (with COMMENT)

Thanks a bunch for clarifying, Dave :

Rev_17 just flew with:

    In order to deploy this, network administrators MUST ensure that 6LR/6LBRs
    in their network support the number and type of devices that can register to
    them, based on the  number of IPv6 addresses that those devices require and
    their address renewal rate and behavior.

I understand, then, that we are all OK with this : )

Take care,;

pascal





From: 6lo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Dave Thaler
Sent: mardi 3 avril 2018 19:03
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Warren Kumari <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Gabriel Montenegro <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-16: (with COMMENT)


> I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the uppercase MUST in:

> "A network administrator MUST deploy updated 6LR/6LBRs to support the

> number and type of devices in their network, ..." Having an uppercase

> MUST driving operators' design decisions stuff feels weird. I'd be

> perfectly fine with something like "In order to deploy this, network

> administrators MUST..." or "Network Administrators need to ensure that

> 6LR/6LBRs support the number and..."

>

[PT>] This MUST comes from rev-14, based on Dave Thaler's review (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2017/05/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-11.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.microsoft.com_en-2Dus_research_uploads_prod_2017_05_draft-2Dietf-2D6lo-2Drfc6775-2Dupdate-2D11.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=RDc9ZxjBFWMBPcau_Di92lI2Ryts_AP-YSRUTVPZGi0&s=YFFf_FHlxmY1w_ehu2djGcGIZ4l8Cdz0k-yUYOYyrZE&e=>) I'm not too keen on rolling back the uppercase, cc'ing Dave to validate.



My comment was about the use of lower case “should” which was ambiguous. I asked if you meant SHOULD or MUST.

I’m fine with any unambiguous answer.  Warren’s wordings above are fine, as is the one you ask about below.



What about:

"

    In order to deploy this, network administrators MUST ensure that 6LR/6LBRs

    in their network support the number and type of devices that can register to them,

    based on the  number of IPv6 addresses that those devices require and their

   address  renewal rate and behavior.

"



Dave