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

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!

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
>
>