IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 05 May 2016 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBE212B049 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2016 10:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DoCCmX_VA4ZN for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2016 10:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90E9412D162 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 May 2016 10:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x234.google.com with SMTP id u10so23014801igr.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 May 2016 10:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=FqzIa/CeEmU5LDZFpiV/Uj/8xNK0fiVKILRyCpOVIdU=; b=Reh8epJPC3JFpRpR9bPkeMI8jIC1nuEzkTTXgOC4XjwbTjxF1vwUKn+ujor20zidR3 xdH2shGmTo6g/oj06Cbas/nvT5IYN//ahvKOV4l2yji1YTfIloMOgf7OjwcQQ3MTTe2Y cHcRrF/DgKDdmUPOp33RRajia5li3fSO1Y4WJ62fkYAJ1QRKhf8esgiH4pTvDeX7kGjg yNX57cWKSZR5ItJm9N+zt6M/EVJjaJkQfIeudCZeRCIjrx9kcE4FfNmYuLjrScv7HK/u QHC7v5gFZGxBoOOmJl2ewLzE4KMPV6yp+fEeoYHOltw+MhW+8U6Wq8JzyCRUWlwVNyoq VwlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=FqzIa/CeEmU5LDZFpiV/Uj/8xNK0fiVKILRyCpOVIdU=; b=SIuN1cDY1J1oIr5ojhSuhSYI4rata1/pGSBb5KCqiCKd/nJ2c0NrnhQ0Keg187DIYM QFiu79p8je3VHkInjwq/jm0woHfZkEp7W0/T2T5lIdhNe2DYDdBUTF71dtBlJheW92UX PjtvIUI18+D771kJPh4xP2TGca7zh7YCC0A6Gt+hXQyfuP2ysqfanVTSkWSQ0HPyagCt MaCrvNtxvJoVKRv/dhQ9DecyiBwiaXChl2vnbDntJcYXUu2Kcb4PHknvgtUV3SH9VMsY d3VtTjtorpq4zztaDx7msPqzO68wbtLx6CPQ10h9kZFZlI+AalG+DoiVQ9i09Hz0wRn+ 7NVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUI0bybV0siZFMAst8/UyGMmCStYuBfG1S8GnVnRXRhVdwFKAmQ/dQF4a/rRlkCEKAaZx07SGZG0vomPQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.55.194 with SMTP id u2mr5039646igp.41.1462470761934; Thu, 05 May 2016 10:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.19.218 with HTTP; Thu, 5 May 2016 10:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D34E8105.29483%volz@cisco.com>
References: <0a8817dba2ea46c88ca67334a11c956d@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <CAJE_bqedsyBNLscViu+C9JSRm0sDtnGBjk+4SCPtZ5cKnDanYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFx+hEMmAbEPq6F_Uh4x5jX7pLXyO7pjaq8_DB+dhQhQUpXBJw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeX6TbKgGHSi_k5+R6ML+b7uhm5h_N9e3R5q45jKuAjbA@mail.gmail.com> <3436638ada5242bf970a30897a8fbd93@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <CAJE_bqek+GWqTBRKj=4uLyJYXWd3_TniWrqOuwaQab2LB30ZZg@mail.gmail.com> <D34E8105.29483%volz@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 10:52:41 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: eoQ5j8GjGTJ2mgsZuau0_g31XVA
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqcKuiTtz-nss6yB0emagiUYRdpafbbCSABPYYg5wzr24A@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/pK2EQcCwtTjvpCYlogteTrSHFw8>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Follow up from IETF-95 - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 05 May 2016 17:52:45 -0000

At Tue, 3 May 2016 20:24:25 +0000,
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> This is a real case, not something I dreamed up.

Okay, in that case I'd suggest explaining such a practical motivation
in the draft.  It doesn't have to be a specific existing/planned
service, but would have to be something more specific than what's
currently given in Introduction and "Problem" parts of subsequent
sections.  I'd also expect it will explain why the hint for the prefix
length is so special and requires special handling along with that
motivation.

And, going back to the very original question of this thread with the
above in mind...

>> Please respond with your comments as to whether this document
>> should be Informational or Standards Track by May 5th, 2016.

I think this should be a Standards Track document.  It may still
depend on how common the expected use case is (which I really don't
understand yet), but assuming it's at least moderately common, the
proposed behavior will substantially affect interoperability of the
use case.  For the same reason, IMO key requirements should be clearly
specified with RFC2119 keywords.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email