Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889 modifications

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

On the title change, I remember in Maastricht all accept one 
preferred the title change. On the list as well.
There are two arguments.
1) it is _a_ model
2) the model doesn't support hosts, or at least not very well
On the latter, there was a discussion without outcome.

Regards, Teco

Op 21 aug 2010, om 08:53 heeft Thomas Heide Clausen het volgende geschreven:

> All,
> 
> The consensus call on the last-round-changes to this document closed on August 9. 
> 
> Special thanks to Erik for providing the summary of changes for the last-call, and to everybody who have made their opinions known on the list. I note that there wasn't a storm of opinions or opposition to the proposed changes, which I interpret as that most in the WG are fine with the changes. 
> 
> Still, there was some discussion and some suggestions for changes to the proposal -- reiterated below with, the resolution to each item also indicated:
> 
>> Change the title
>> FROM
>>              IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks
>> TO
>>              A Router Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks
> 
> 
> There were no strong opinions expressed in favor of the change, and a some fairly strong objections raised against the change.
> 
> ==> We therefore gauge that there is consensus for RETAINING the title as "IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks".
> 
>> In section 5:
>> OLD:
>> Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different
>> requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such
>> requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness
>> only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined
>> in [RFC1136]).
>> 
>> Configuring an IP address that is unique within the routing domain
>> satisfies the less stringent uniqueness requirements of local
>> uniqueness, while also enabling protocols which have the most
>> stringent requirements of uniqueness within the routing domain.  This
>> suggests the following principle:
>> 
>> o  an IP address assigned to an interface that connects to a link
>> with undetermined connectivity properties should be unique, at
>> least within the routing domain.
>> 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different
>> requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such
>> requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness
>> only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined
>> in [RFC1136]).
>> 
>> Routing protocols that do not require unique IP addresses within the
>> routing domain utilize a separate unique identifier within the routing
>> protocol itself; such identifiers could be based on factory assignment
>> or configuration.
>> 
>> Nevertheless, configuring an IP address that is unique within the routing
>> domain satisfies the less stringent uniqueness requirements of local
>> uniqueness, while also enabling protocols which have the most
>> stringent requirements of uniqueness within the routing domain.
>> As a result, the following principle allows for IP autoconfiguration to
>> apply to the widest array of routing protocols:
>> 
>> o  an IP address assigned to an interface that connects to a link
>> with undetermined connectivity properties should be unique, at
>> least within the routing domain.
> 
> 
> There were no objections raised against the proposed changes.
> 
> ==> We therefore gauge that there is consensus for CHANGING section 5 as proposed by the text below "NEW" in the above.
> 
>> In Section 6.1:
>> OLD:
>> o  There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses are
>> unique across multiple links, hence they cannot be used to
>> reliably identify routers (it is often desirable to identify a
>> router with an IP address).
>> 
>> NEW:
>> o  In general there is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local
>> addresses are unique across multiple links, however link-local
>> addresses using an IID that are of the modified EUI-64 form are
>> globally unique. Thus if link-local addresses are used to reliably
>> identify routers then they must be of the modified EUI-64 form.
> 
> 
> There were some opinions expressed regarding the last sentence, notably that "must" (even if not capitalized as per RFC2119) is too strong.
> 
> Christopher Dearlove and Teco Boot suggested/supported the following text, supported by Emmanuel Baccelli, and to which no opposition was expressed:
> 
>> NEWER:
>> 
>> o  In general there is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local
>>    addresses are unique across multiple links, however link-local
>>    addresses using an IID that are of the modified EUI-64 form
>>    should be globally unique
> 
> ==> We therefore gauge that there is consensus for CHANGING section 6 as proposed by the text below "NEWER" in the above.
> 
> As the document is in the hands of the RFC Editor, we hereby ask our ADs (Ralph and Jari) for guidance as to if an updated I-D is appropriate, or if they will produce and forward the above as a note to the RFC Editor such that we can progress this document towards publication. 
> 
> Again, thanks to all for your efforts on this matter!
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> Thomas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf