Re: [dhcwg] Updating RFC 3633 with draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Wed, 22 February 2017 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6526A12999E for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:28:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZXAbD61_2d83 for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC3D12997E for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:28:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2403; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1487784481; x=1488994081; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=yUJ0khoPi5dF+l6qBvMw2ENcrr2rBzXrdQ/rQXoACqU=; b=bwBwupRCKQN3hJNx3KQSQgIXLmeK6UHXlhOTkE/gz8gCmdakZSAFrBHP 44zJ5k+mrFDGei1khYB9BO3UXLzIJtUvnnbIT8S0UrumypsvLVbFJQIjA d4fcHwxgxr+05fy0ekw8DuDfud05FcvGQrWIquVteTGuxqVxuk0lxTvD2 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,195,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="201340996"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 22 Feb 2017 17:28:00 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1MHS0Hc023622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:28:00 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:27:59 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:27:59 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: Suresh Krishnan <>, Erik Kline <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Updating RFC 3633 with draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
Thread-Index: AQHSjAdpZrZhqiHmrU2X2q8zezC2gKF0ZvoA///T33CAAQpxEA==
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:27:59 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dhcwg <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Updating RFC 3633 with draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:28:03 -0000


Also, my personal opinion (wg chair hat off) is that we DON'T tag this document to update 3633. There is no specific text in this draft that replaces text in 3633. The section 3.6 is a "General Recommendation" and it could be argued that 3633 always intended clients to include the hint in each request.

And, also if 3315bis obsoletes 3633, it might REQUIRE us to address this in 3315bis? Rather than just reference it - and while we could add the "General Recommendation", one would then lose a lot of the background as to why this is important (and the rest of the prefix-hint draft isn't well suited to be incorporated in 3315bis).

Hence, my personal opinion is that we:
1. Don't specify that this document updates 3633.
2. Have 3315bis reference it (which we already do).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 8:19 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan <>om>; Erik Kline <>
Cc: dhcwg <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Updating RFC 3633 with draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue

And, at some point we have to draw the line as to what can be added to 3315bis or it will never finish.

I think having this as a standalone document is fine. Note that 3315bis does reference it.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan [] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:56 PM
To: Erik Kline <>
Cc: tianxiang li <>om>; dhcwg <>rg>; Bernie Volz (volz) <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Updating RFC 3633 with draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue

Hi Erik,

> On Feb 21, 2017, at 12:57 AM, Erik Kline <> wrote:
> What about folding in to 3315bis (where other 3633 info is going)?  I have no strong preference one way or the other, just asking.

<AD Hat off>That is certainly something worth considering, but I think it should be independent of this document. There are people who implement RFC3633 and it would be good if they can use this independently without needing to wait for 3315bis.


dhcwg mailing list