Re: [dhcwg] Follow up from IETF-95 - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue

Hi,

I think seeing the changes that adding normative text would make is the best way forward.

I also would like to see the outcome of this rolled up into the 3315-bis as it’s directly applicable and one of the motivations for writing it is that 3633 didn’t cover it. But, publishing this as informational without normative language and then putting it into 3315-bis with normative seems a bit like a 'bait-and-switch’:-)

So, if it needs normative text in 3315-bis, then it should be progressed as Standards track in this version.

Cheers,
Ian

> On 21 Apr 2016, at 20:59, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> 
> Ted,
> 
>> Ole, the point is that if the document makes any normative statements, it's got to be standards-track.   You are quite right that the particular statements you call out should not be made normatively, though!
> 
> Agree, one option if we can identify what's normative in the document would be to add that text to the 3315bis and leave this informational.
> 
> RFC2119-ifying the text the authors think should be normative would be a good start.
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:28 PM, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> there are some parts that could be made normative, like section 2.5.
>> but most of the document appears informational in nature.
>> paraphrased example: "the server should delegates a /48 if the client requests it".
>> that's clearly policy, and a matter of the possible commercial arrangement, seems strange if the IETF should try to codify that.
>> 
>> I lean towards informational.
>> 
>> the document also does not say anything about _how_ the client is supposed to figure out what sized address block to request.
>> if the answer to that is manual configuration, then there are tens of ways that could be done differently out of band.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 18:45, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi:
>>> 
>>> One item that was raised at the IETF-95 DHC WG session was the recent change (suggested by me before draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02 was published) to switch draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue to Informational rather than Standards Track. Marcin Siodelski suggested that the document be Standards Track:
>>> 
>>> The brief (draft) minutes for this discuss are:
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 5. DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues, Bernie Volz (for Tianxiang Li) - 10 minutes, 14:50
>>>    draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
>>> 
>>>    The authors believe work is ready for WGLC.
>>> 
>>>    Ian: Is this now informational? "This is the suggested way to do it"?
>>>    Bernie: Correct. There were some discussions and the conclusion was to not
>>>       enforce it.
>>>    Marcin (on jabber): I'd suggest this is standards track doc with normative language
>>>       in. Otherwise implementations will ignore hints.
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> Once we resolve this open question (and after a possible update to the document), we intend to start a WGLC on the document.
>>> 
>>> Please respond with your comments as to whether this document should be Informational or Standards Track by May 5th, 2016. Of course, any other comments are welcome as well!
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> -          Tomek & Bernie
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg