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

[tianxiang li <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think it is a good idea to first add normative text into the document. We
will update a new version of the prefix-length hint issues draft soon, and
determine which parts should be normative.
We really appreciate your comments.

Thank you,
Tianxiang


2016-04-22 17:20 GMT+08:00 Ian Farrer <[e-mail]>:

> 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, [e-mail] 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, <[e-mail]> 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) <[e-mail]> 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
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dhcwg mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>