Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-06.txt

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:55:59 +0000,
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> A new version of this document has been posted. Sorry for the long
> delay but there were some significant changes to make and thanks to
> Marcin for joining the authors to make some of those changes.

I've just made a quick scan of the 06 version.  I'm going to take a
closer look at it later, but please let me check one high level thing
first, based on my own comments on the previous version:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg15284.html

Can I assume that this draft tries to provide a generalized specification
for all current and possible IA_xx, even if the original motivation
was (in my understanding from the previous discussion) to clarify the
usage of IA_NA and IA_PA in the same DHCPv6 session?  And, if so, does
it try to provide a well-defined specification for the usage with
IA_TA and other IA_xx's?

The overall tone of the new version from a quick read seemed to
suggest that the answer is "yes" to both questions, but in some
specific cases the draft still seems to focus on /assume specific
usage (not just as an example).  Also, as for IA_TA, the 4th paragraph
of Section 1, especially its second sentence, could read as if IA_TA
is an out of scope of this specification:

   [...] IA_TA also has limited value when DHCPv6 is used for address
   assignment, as the privacy issues identified for IPv6 stateless
   address assignment ([RFC4941]) do not apply to DHCPv6 assignments.

If the intent is to also cover the usage of IA_TA, I don't see the
need for this sentence in the context of this document.

I'd like to be sure about the author's intent of these, as that would
affect how I should read the draft and possibly make comments on it.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya