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

Right.   Sorry, was I packet-storming?   Maybe I misunderstood what Ole was
suggesting.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> Ted … if we put normative text in, it will be Standards Track.
>
>
>
> -          Bernie
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:28 PM
> *To:* Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* dhcwg@ietf.org; otroan@employees.org
> *Subject:* RE: [dhcwg] Follow up from IETF-95 -
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
>
>
>
> Ole's suggestion is correct except that if we have normative language in
> the document, the iesg is going to ask why it's informative. There isn't
> any question to debate here. Either it's normative, iwc PS, or it's not
> normative, iwc informative. I feel like Ole may just be resisting
> publishing it at all, iwc we should do that, not confuse the iesg. But I
> think that would be the wrong move, because we don't know when 3315bis will
> get consensus.
>
> On Apr 21, 2016 4:02 PM, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> While
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-01
> was standards track and had RFC2119 "requirements language", it was never
> used. So, the draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02 was changed
> to informational. However, The RFC2119 requirements language section wasn't
> removed until draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-00 was
> published.
>
> So, perhaps Ole's suggestion for the authors to propose what they think
> should be normative (there was a suggestion that section 2.5 be) is a good
> one. And, from that we can see if Standards Track is more appropriate.
>
> BTW: The text about assigning a /48 was in an "e.g." (for example)
> section. And that would not be normative and was never intended to be:
>
>                                 E.g.  If the delegating router could only
>    provide prefixes of lengths /30, /48, and /56, and the requesting
>    router is requesting for a /50 in the prefix-length hint, then the
>    delegating router should provide the /48 to the requesting router
>
> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: otroan@employees.org [mailto:otroan@employees.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:00 PM
> To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
> Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Follow up from IETF-95 -
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>