Re: IPv6 options defined outside of 6man

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 16/11/2016 à 17:16, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I just the other day noticed that RFC7710 defines RA type for captive
> portal URI along DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options for the same use.
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-5
> lists the options currently defined.
>
> This option was discussed briefly in 6man in March 2015, and then I saw
> no announcement of this actually being approved.
>
> I found out in IDR the other day that any IETF working group can ask
> IANA to allocate numbers in any registries, and normally this goes to
> respective AD and WG who would then normally either allocate an expert
> to review, and/or have the entire WG review it.
>
> I previously thought respective WG "owned" certain IANA option space
> they typically work with. This is not the case. Even people in IDR
> thought IDR "owned" certain IANA option space, and they were also wrong.
>
> So do we here in 6man want some kind of process and consensus calling
> before this review is concluded and we say "no objection" when other WGs
> define IPv6 related options?

This would be reasonable to do, I think.

>
> I believe DHC working group does this, they bring up options for
> discussions there before they're ACKed.

I agree, as long as it gets constructive feedback from 6man.

Alex


>
> Thoughts?
>