Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-04

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 10 September 2020 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFE03A0A22; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 header.b=auTbp1Go; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=eCRdbjs3
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 6eFG1fToCGqp; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD0243A0A04; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6072; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1599699027; x=1600908627; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=nlFfhXn4ObUqh1jrv8oAzVm2tX1uQz8Fbi3dozR3t8w=; b=auTbp1GoWd3HMnAg9856LrZ4FH1iF0CtfcmL7SXiyan/jFsqWgFWDPGq UGwpvsSwXhOD0wQBvqQjrIO8KqLv4O1jKd9ofEi+NBvdf17I5lIoqcco1 JtIfu1A0A7T+q4HUcJD944PVj4z+As/ICyZAceoaQ1T7IVEl7yJKWLK86 g=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AJNZ/ORxzqjsdhdTXCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9p?= =?us-ascii?q?sgjfdUf7+++4j5ZRaHt/h1jUTVUIDWrfRJl7mev6PhXDkG5pCM+DAHfYdXXh?= =?us-ascii?q?AIwcMRg0Q7AcGDBEG6SZyibyEzEMlYElMw+Xa9PBtYAMfle1DXrzu04CJBUh?= =?us-ascii?q?n6PBB+c+LyHIOahs+r1ue0rpvUZQgAhDe0bb5oahusqgCEvcgNiowkIaE0mR?= =?us-ascii?q?Y=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CNBQApd1lf/4MNJK1fHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgU+BUlEHgUkvLIQ4g0YDjXKYcYJTA1ULAQEBDAEBLQIEAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?ESwIXgXoCJDgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVcDIVyAQEBAwESEREMAQE3AQQ?= =?us-ascii?q?LAgEIDgoCAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FFA6DBIJMAw4gAahUAoE5iGF2gTKDAQEBBYU?= =?us-ascii?q?YGIIQCYEOKoJxglsSOUKGURuCAIERJxyCTT6EJ4MtM4ItkAOCXDyjUwqCZZo?= =?us-ascii?q?yAx6gVo4Dn32EKAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBayOBV3AVZQGCPlAXAg2OHweDaopWdDc?= =?us-ascii?q?CBgEJAQEDCXyJVYFmXwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,411,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="555803713"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 10 Sep 2020 00:50:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 08A0oQ2G028247 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:50:26 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 19:50:25 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 20:50:24 -0400
Received: from NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 20:50:24 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=b5BdLrYcLKEUd8AwZ7YYMUpjG5jfjku8U2lpBGcGtNTFp1cAu15x8+VRVsr6dfKqFELsKjO9X4Cib5HKtapLH/8oYJNMKj8Aw/QFzC249hzylFn5OjnmmpBLPwM1zj5yqszmZUDuplZacOcXbH929O925fGiP0B0wZG5Bazg7ZjAyZFXHdFK9+yIAOr95fwacl9KMEnE4RApmqU5c56l9d6i6pVefA0T5MQ+l5p3irP/npfQ7jfevJ2b9fybU4URuKCWEyLw1N+6i/4kJTkr27mt54/hMDjU/qhYpoJ/0gYVQU1i6c6Ei04iMA6wCi/weoQIz0+e3c8SPYZ47KsN7Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nlFfhXn4ObUqh1jrv8oAzVm2tX1uQz8Fbi3dozR3t8w=; b=RgVw6QPkJYrzQhFiEmtiUq/PpL8eRriJchth4sJLLHTgCwQgdphF7MhPccP6VXyEy1/aaYfau+lzy6IVczKZlmr/66fVrSk/N+IPtHyxIzHy7KbzjnT+DZq8YbtOq6Y2tOG214vKLasFJvLFIyyJZDx/Yze+8JSYItWRSz+6nQcBHRuBnmEAX9SGHJiBbx5oZVuE2Iv0zt69fucBO2OG8vam+VTWNicEyZAKFz/+TZwnMkKsX3bTuP24cCGidj/+KEtHYu2sUBvubmvbNW5J3vyg5ilhiggZOren69XhT994NGZFbBtt1Zq/rtX9q3wbn/ikDykGV00fexnjepqmKA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nlFfhXn4ObUqh1jrv8oAzVm2tX1uQz8Fbi3dozR3t8w=; b=eCRdbjs31T5+8rdNSoLdkNTDRO1M8eFRiFgSyfHuMbjLw0V8/wfj3xgx5ukKyfk8Q7oGtWBOCLAuW6r+WQ1TInb9QScY21zYvEowr7DtAvRfnxA45VyHBQJLcIdSDRTccGmSji+D3X5Z9vflEItda50OCnjZOFulkkoyc2ceTq0=
Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:af::18) by BN7PR11MB2787.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:b4::28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3370.16; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:50:23 +0000
Received: from BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4ced:474b:c85e:9533]) by BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4ced:474b:c85e:9533%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3326.030; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:50:23 +0000
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
CC: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-04
Thread-Index: AQHWhuD5FL2lzkJmi06xYHTA0yi8SqlhCVQAgAABpW4=
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:50:23 +0000
Message-ID: <2C9BF3C2-A611-4F18-8F03-104405DD9799@cisco.com>
References: <159968036707.9786.16859070438001357349@ietfa.amsl.com>, <8d777075-25b5-1817-5c2a-18162bfb9e71@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d777075-25b5-1817-5c2a-18162bfb9e71@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: episteme.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;episteme.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1006::2d1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0cf0893a-71a5-40a3-aa42-08d85523805a
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR11MB2787:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN7PR11MB27875F392550310377F2E495CF270@BN7PR11MB2787.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: XOj8YvdQz7Nf9pEMCAhQFqd/2xBU75FWnh+cqx0vDFFJFvGTTC3ndEicRQIdLb5ixVF0uQ1bsA8d0tIrkrTEpLOREdasLeZgxZYjzg8/gFJfKdbdueZlSDF6U2gNVjtwcfoMOgamkFmVWxbRkN0kbNlgGFDJdGfDOzfS14vgVFNJxkyWmP9vn0BNMqCPIrBsk6HL2oULw6W87PVgDJv7aHRzW1lUV8oMxlAgB0shsEQUCHNvSA6N8+hPzlCcxRFjpyADhtdSi9h00aiB1fxIH1VmH3Gi4zsIwqOJkh4XX3BeKE2BhZ8DrZt0pecEXJ72
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39860400002)(346002)(366004)(376002)(396003)(136003)(54906003)(6916009)(6512007)(2906002)(8936002)(4326008)(8676002)(36756003)(6486002)(66574015)(71200400001)(316002)(66446008)(33656002)(76116006)(86362001)(5660300002)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(64756008)(91956017)(83380400001)(478600001)(6506007)(53546011)(2616005)(186003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0cf0893a-71a5-40a3-aa42-08d85523805a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Sep 2020 00:50:23.7457 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: H0CaAZu90C+jI1aJ/mgouGp0p0FSoA1vuErKafbpAXzofctTOoHRKpA5ioQadNqa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR11MB2787
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/QIVl1Nc8lwxJ8KtlZwCrm8IbkVQ>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:50:38 -0000

Interesting that the datatracker says the document is "Proposed Standard", but the document has "Intend status: Informational". The two should be made to agree.

- Bernie

> On Sep 9, 2020, at 8:45 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello, Pete,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your feedback! In-line....
> 
> On 9/9/20 16:39, Pete Resnick via Datatracker wrote:
> [....]
>> Major issues: None
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum
>> Minor issues:
>> The shepherd writeup says:
>>    The document so far has been approved by the V6OPS working group
>>    (successful working group last call). The document does not specify
>>    new protocol, but rather changes to the default parameters in
>>    existing protocols.
>> However, the document is Informational, as confirmed by the shepherd writeup.
>> If this is actually updating default parameters in protocols, that sounds like
>> it should either be a Standards Track document or more likely a BCP. As 2026
>> says:
>>    The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
>>    standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. [...]
>>    ...[G]ood user
>>    service requires that the operators and administrators of the
>>    Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.
>>    While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style
>>    from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process
>>    for consensus building.
>> That sounds like what this is doing, especially with all of the 2119 language
>> in here. Maybe this is Informational because 7084 (and 6204 before it) were
>> Informational, but perhaps 7084 (and other such document) should be BCP as
>> well. Indeed, it sounds like all of these SLAAC operational documents could be
>> in one BCP together. 
> 
> FWIW, the reason for which this document is informational is because the document it's formally updating (RFC7084) is also informational. -- Me, I'd probably agree with you that both RFC7084 and this document should be BCPs, rather than Informational. I'd like to hear from our AD regarding how to proceed here.
> 
> FWIW, I'm fine with changing the track to BCP, although I'd also note that there's plenty of existing practice of documents of this type published as Informational.
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, Informational seems wrong.
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> Throughout the document, it says, "This document RECOMMENDS..." or "This
>> document also RECOMMENDS" or "Additionally, this document RECOMMENDS". RFC 2119
>> does not use "RECOMMENDS". You can say "CE Routers SHOULD..." or "A Router
>> Lifetime of ND_PREFERRED_LIMIT is RECOMMENDED" or if you must "It is
>> RECOMMENDED that..." (blech, I hate the passive form), since SHOULD and
>> RECOMMENDED are equivalent in 2119, but using the "This document RECOMMENDS..."
>> form is weird and isn't in 2119.
> 
> Fair enough. I'll apply the suggested edit unless I hear otherwise from others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> In 3.3, it says:
>>    o  Upon changes to the advertised prefixes, and after bootstrapping,
>>       the CE router advertising prefix information via SLAAC SHOULD
>>       proceed as follows:
>> But then each of the things under there has a SHOULD or a MUST. The SHOULD here
>> is confusing. Instead, the sentence could simply be:
>>    o  Upon changes to the advertised prefixes, and after bootstrapping,
>>    the CE router advertising prefix information via SLAAC proceeds as
>>    follows:
>> Similarly:
>>    This document RECOMMENDS that if a CE Router provides LAN-side DHCPv6
>>    (address assignment or prefix delegation), the following behavior be
>>    implemented:
>> Just make the sentence:
>>    If a CE Router that provides LAN-side DHCPv6 (address assignment or
>>    prefix delegation), then:
> 
> FWIW, the motivation for the "SHOULD" in Section 3.3 is that it generally implies that the device records prefixes on non-volatile storage. But there are valid reasons for which a device might be unable to (e.g., economical, if you wish).
> 
> Then, the "MUSTs" elsewhere essentially try to signal how crucial implementation of each specific behavior is.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
>