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

Tomek Mrugalski <> Wed, 22 February 2017 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7568612968B for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:45:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l3BIsXAiDch5 for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:45:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1233129503 for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:45:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l12so5191509lfe.0 for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:45:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HOz21pfuAIeoeDs5HYz4w/gRaU/dyD7CktjD/8lrVPE=; b=p0enfBhQZs3OGdk3CRxn/gEcToGphwa64ftQ/noAQhkP+x1c68WxE+MnG39Lv9fLmj tFPUCvsPeRSTTK/Gf89MTAUCW7t0Vtdbx2l8lAEwq+WiI282PzzyjM1frfkSMjl3Q8bk chqov/YkdVws1CdZqVgIF7EGiY79OKLXGN/CO3zDL4W84p5ILt+ROhbTSjOVEEyTc/0a UT80J2wJnOiva6Ko3tAtlqTFG4OhYPO1Yjsbr+TivcoxozyYkyFwnmvfClKmQq4gGph2 f0YKhqtIbZZ+gJGR8hWDSTLpaBv55+bqLgMMwBrOq27yo7pxh+iRQ6fAeriun//QRNdw z/PQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HOz21pfuAIeoeDs5HYz4w/gRaU/dyD7CktjD/8lrVPE=; b=fewEH8ahvfFVxdpIbzvjqGnfOvdPDjt0G2EdFDw6K4gKYOlGPv05SqR3De5YifwRsj 7azZ5iZl7dz/rNVpGMCG98N1CDP0q1kyp+LMyCfNV16N0nGD8NTlui8AEf6se+YsWpz2 Vd9W6cnAlTW2fYJMFAvNxDOaNgveNrVRkTg6uFrPDi0ap56h4+XmlMAKdy/zm7JekU+6 W9fezGCzOs5p7z+quPG2I4GmuuTbCTOW8xuoObIHDadveLiZdzj8xKycsxQ3sZchgZlk RGxaIeOyeBYdzQPZQ8DhFpgtOV8wvObMvyZQVElkwj8bU7yQsoBVcXiiCRHD9+WB48Mw +WTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kpYEdpm3MdB4i5LGE2RSnazkRlgP4CQEaXrWNzv6Mu3jkTRrjguHduVVrw53lY1A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id t2mr9311915ljd.82.1487785511905; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:45:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id s7sm7308423lja.27.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:45:11 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <>
From: Tomek Mrugalski <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:45:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
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 17:45:15 -0000

W dniu 21.02.2017 o 05:06, Suresh Krishnan pisze:
>> On Feb 17, 2017, at 12:32 AM, tianxiang li <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> The IESG review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue has ended, several reviewers suggested this document should update RFC 3633, as someone reading RFC3633 would need a pointer to this document. Hope to receive the comments from the WG regarding this issue. 
>> I personally have no objections to adding the Updates: RFC3633 tag to the document. It would be great if other WG participants can chime in one way or another.
With my co-chair hat off, I don't have any specific preference here. On
one hand, if we update 3633, we will be enforcing everyone to follow the
recommendation made in prefix-length-hint-issue. The obvious benefit is
that prefix-length-hint-issue will get more exposure, which is a good
thing. On the other hand, the 3315bis work hopefully will be published
later this year and it will obsolete 3633. Assuming the bis work gets
published relatively soon, the window of opportunity when the 3633
update will be applicable is several months. As Bernie pointed out,
3315bis references prefix-length-hint-issue.

If it was completely up to me, I would go with update 3633, because that
would give this draft immediate exposure to more readers. Also, if
3315bis publication is delayed for whatever reason, updating seems like
a better choice. But I wouldn't complain if we decide to go the "don't
update" route.