IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] advancing RFC8415

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 26 January 2021 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB2E3A0D78 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:37:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 4xV8KQF6zfQE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C4293A0B5B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816BC38A12 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:39:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gatQ9QtC7tUu for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:39:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF43F38A11 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:39:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A439DAF9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:37:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB254729F216EA7D5DE786CA3CCFBC9@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <161072898498.9489.2611555465563748934@ietfa.amsl.com> <BN7PR11MB2547CDD79B10E5D9D1523B53CFA70@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <30620.1610833681@localhost> <BN7PR11MB254729F216EA7D5DE786CA3CCFBC9@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:37:02 -0500
Message-ID: <21631.1611686222@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/4MMR1XufF6q-xJjya_oAYFFh9sw>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] advancing RFC8415
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:37:07 -0000

Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
    > Per RFC6410 section 2.2, we need to:

...

    >    (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
    > increase implementation complexity.

...

Thanks for the reply and clarification to the group.

    > For (2), while there are currently 3 errata, these all seem to be minor
    > errors in the text. So, I think we are OK there. I don't think we need
    > a RFC8415-bis.

    > For (3), there could be a debate whether IA_TA's are "unused". But as
    > IA_TAs are optional and the deltas from IA_NA are "small", I would
    > argue that it doesn't greatly increase the complexity of the
    > implementations?

Yeah, this is where I think we'll need to clear.
Note that it says, "greatly increase", and I would certainly agree that IA_TA
does not fall into that category.

The DHCPv6 (mostly PD) client that is in OpenWRT probably gets the most
excerise out there.

It seems to interoperate well.  Perhaps Broadband Forum and CableLabs would
also be able to provide some data and/or contacts for ISPs that are
successfully doing IPv6-PD to home networks.  That might reveal a nice
interop matrix.  Maybe they won't go public with the data, but perhaps could
still attest to it.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email