Re: Proposed change to draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host after IESG review

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim,

On 09/16/2016 05:25 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On 16 Sep 2016, at 01:49, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/15/2016 05:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This message concerns
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-09 .
>>>
>>> There is one remaining issue in the draft before it can get IESG approval.
>>> One of the routing ADs proposes the following change. It does not affect
>>> the normative content of the draft, but it is a technical change (deletion)
>>> so we'd like to hear if there are any objections from the WG. Please comment
>>> within a week (silence means no objection to this change). Some more
>>> background is below the proposed change.
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>> 2.2.  Expectations of multihomed networks
>>>
>>>   The mechanism specified in this document requires some form of
>>>   support from the routing protocols used in multihomed networks.  One
>>>   such way of providing the requisite support in routing protocols is
>>>   described in a routing protocol independent fashion
>>>   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing].  Network designs exist that can
>>>   usefully limit themselves to static routing (such as a simple tree
>>>   network), or may internally use no routers at all, such as a single
>>>   LAN with two CE routers, each of which leads to a different upstream
>>>   network.
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>> 2.2.  Expectations of multihomed networks
>>>
>>>   Network designs exist that can usefully limit themselves to static
>>>   routing (such as a simple tree network) or may internally use no
>>>   routers at all, such as a single LAN with two CE routers, each of
>>>   which leads to a different upstream network.  However, the
>>>   mechanism specified in this document may require some form of
>>>   support from the routing protocols used in some multihomed networks.
>>>   The details of such support are out of scope for this document.
>>>
>>> You can see Alia's original DISCUSS comment dated 2016-08-02 at
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host/history/ .
>>> The "SHOULD" mentioned there has already been removed, but her considered
>>> opinion is that the routing solution is simply out of scope for this draft.
>>
>> Isn't the reference to [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing] simply
>> informational?
>>
>> If my mental diff (not having slept for quite too many hours) doesn't
>> fail, the only different between OLD and NEW is s/requires&may require/
>> and the deletion of the (alas informative) reference.
>>
>> The s/requires/may require" seems to be incorrect (unless I'm missing
>> something). The informational diff shouldn't be a show-stopper (whether
>> included or removed... although I'd keep it, given the option).
>
> The question is whether a specific draft informational document needs to be cited explicitly as an example. I recall when we finalised RFC7368 for the Homenet architecture, we were guided to remove similar such references there, but to retain their spirit in the text.

Yes. Citing a specific draft seems to be the main open issue. Thanks for the 
background info about RFC7368. It is very useful.

>
> I note that draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host doesn’t cite RFC7368, which mentions the utility of src/dst routing in sections 3.1.2, 3.2.4 (twice) and 3.5.1, with referring to any specific related draft at the time of that RFC being published. I think what was said then, at least two years ago, still holds.

Sounds good to me.

Thanks
Suresh