IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5547)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 08 November 2018 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AD7126CB6 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 06:00:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yh2qS6Hi7pHj for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 06:00:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AEE1126BED for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 06:00:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42rQ0J4lVXz4x9T; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:00:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.58]) by opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42rQ0J3kFkzDq8b; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:00:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::3881:fc15:b4b2:9017%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:00:15 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
CC: Congxiao Bao <congxiao@cernet.edu.cn>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>, "spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com" <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, "dwing@cisco.com" <dwing@cisco.com>, "huitema@microsoft.com" <huitema@microsoft.com>, "ietf@kuehlewind.net" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5547)
Thread-Index: AQHUda5C5UNZI0uinEu8o8U7txAo3qVCaMCAgAAPCICAA3JyQA==
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 14:00:14 +0000
Message-ID: <47e1fae5-21ef-4960-aad3-b0862708b1e5@OPEXCLILM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20181106085323.07C1BB80008@rfc-editor.org> <27516408-05B3-4C08-B40E-B01E44525AB5@gmail.com> <5a5d6ac6-2d9a-96ee-118d-3601e47804cc@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <5a5d6ac6-2d9a-96ee-118d-3601e47804cc@huitema.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/y3_YL9eT27TA_AHXYzysU6c2I-Q>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5547)
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/behave/>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 14:00:20 -0000

Hi all, 

I echo what Christian said.

Please note that if one wants to relax the constraint about private IPv4 address in 6052, the WKP prefix defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8215 (which Fred is surely familiar with) can be used. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Behave [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Christian Huitema
> Envoyé : mardi 6 novembre 2018 11:18
> À : Fred Baker; RFC Errata System
> Cc : Congxiao Bao; mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com; Dave Thaler; Xing
> Li; spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com; dwing@cisco.com; huitema@microsoft.com;
> ietf@kuehlewind.net; behave@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5547)
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/6/2018 4:23 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> > On second thought, the exact case is incorrect. I still think it's a silly
> restriction, but the private address in the case would not be placed into the
> Well-Known Prefix (and used as a destination address); it would be put into a
> /64 out of the subscriber's prefix (and used as a source address). So I can
> live without this change.
> 
> Good.
> 
> I think that the text should not be changed by an errata. The text is a
> fair rendering of our technical assessment at the time. We did not want
> to use the WKP to build ambiguous IPv6 addresses, and wanted to make
> sure that private IPv4 addresses will be mapped using private prefixes.
> It may or may not have been the right decision, but this is definitely
> what we intended.
> 
> -- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email