[dhcwg] FW: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 17 July 2017 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E27E131C0A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vSwfNkoQmmyi for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61837131C5D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=23440; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1500325944; x=1501535544; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=hupH5ecyUMf5AHbNQMP3hcCkK7lTpPB0Kl+eMbQPU18=; b=NTSPVqJdW5TuCfyRfZNm1ggPYvfTwzSJTiO58vZzvZ1VloUYnH/kvoi9 pwDoWR/4dnIBiUEv1LInQQ2AvFAnrY6bO8sUOeen6o4Gk7+qjLww52sEQ B4EMXxk5UDmjlqvNxnrUANavL4BlLq7PV+8zUzF5J/ewPMxxKz3Ty9NIY 4=;
X-Files: ATT00001.txt : 130
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,375,1496102400"; d="txt'?scan'208,217";a="53197369"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Jul 2017 21:12:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com []) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6HLCNP6030048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:12:23 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ( by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:12:22 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:12:22 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS/yTAKaatO4qrbUyDTJzp3zis9qJYp0+AgAARdwD//9x8gA==
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:12:22 +0000
Message-ID: <11087B03-F2D0-43CC-B8FE-849888C7FFB1@cisco.com>
References: <596CF817.8040900@foobar.org> <CAPt1N1mm6gMEQN0KQ60e=vROOEbooxOBpZEGBm9SGP4WwBDtnw@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC8M0HJdvWm02FbZeKH8S4-X9-dnE7xjMkQTXEFY=CrDnQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACWOCC8M0HJdvWm02FbZeKH8S4-X9-dnE7xjMkQTXEFY=CrDnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.23.0.170610
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_11087B03F2D043CCB8FE849888C7FFB1ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/M6NoF7d8tWiPacECwFBzd3hrxgs>
Subject: [dhcwg] FW: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:12:26 -0000

FYI – This may be of interest to DHC WG members.

See https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt.

  *   Bernie

From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:19 PM
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>rg>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

Hi Ted,

This contribution made us realize that perhaps a clarification would be useful: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg28040.html

Kind regards,


On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 at 20:17, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com<mailto:mellon@fugue.com>> wrote:
The RFC doesn't say that anywhere in it.   There is no version of the draft that was published on 2/12/2016.   The -01 version of the draft was published in March of that year; the final version in July.   Can you please point out the place in the text where it says what you are saying it says?

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org<mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:
draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00 has just been posted as an ID.

It has recently been claimed that IETF best current practice is that
DHCPv6 is not recommended due to the recommendations section in

The relevant text was slipped into
draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05 on Feb 12, 2016, a couple of
days before the document went into IETF LC.  There was no discussion
about this text change either in the v6ops working group or at IETF
review or IESG level: perhaps the modification appeared innocuous or
maybe it just wasn't not noticed.

Next thing, there's a BCP which is being interpreted as meaning that
DHCPv6 is NOT RECOMMENDED for operational use.  Wow. :-)

This presents a variety of problems, the most serious of which are 1)
that a BCP is implying that the use of DHCPv6 was "NOT RECOMMENDED"
without extensive discussion or debate about this particular issue at
the relevant working group, and ignores the both the widespread use of
the protocol and its active development at the ietf, and 2) that a
change in the status of DHCPv6 to "NOT RECOMMENDED" leaves a huge hole
in the IPv6 host specification.

Job and I believe that this went through by mistake and that if the WG
had noticed the change at the time, consensus would never have been
reached on what is a serious semantic change to IETF lore.

Right now, the most prudent course of action would be to roll back the
change until a proper debate has been had.  We invite WG comments on
this doc.


internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> A new version of I-D, draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Nick Hilliard and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> Name:         draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update
> Revision:     00
> Title:                Update for IPv6 Host Address Availability Recommendations
> Document date:        2017-07-17
> Group:                Individual Submission
> Pages:                4
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00
> Abstract:
>    The IPv6 Host Address Availability Recommendations Best Current
>    Practice (RFC 7934), describes why IPv6 hosts should use multiple
>    global addresses when attaching to a network.  This document updates
>    RFC 7934 by removing a recommendation for networks to give the host
>    the ability to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests.
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.
> The IETF Secretariat

v6ops mailing list

v6ops mailing list