Re: Moving to WGLC 3484-bis?

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim,

On 8/12/11 10:21 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I think we're almost ready to WGLC the 3484-bis draft, as per
> draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-04.
> 
> We had 3 issues in Quebec:
> 
> 1) Inclusion of deprecated prefixes.  It seemed the agreement in the
> room was to include compatibles, site-locals and 6bone prefixes in
> the policy table.  If that's what we do, then we need to add
> 3ffe::/16 back in.
> 
> 2) Privacy bit indicator.  We had removed the privacy bit indicator
> after the heavy negative feedback in Prague to a privacy bit option
> for RAs, but Eric Vyncke suggested it should be added back so that an
> enterprise administrator could use the DHCPv6 policy distribution
> method to have hosts in their domain not use privacy addresses for
> talking to other hosts in their domain (same prefix, or ULAs).  At
> the moment, there is no privacy bit support.
> 
> 3) Prefer greatest lifetime.  We agreed to make no change here.
> 
> If we agree to add back 3ffe::/16, we could quickly produce a
> revise-05 and WGLC based on that, and ask in the WGLC whether there's
> strong support for the privacy option.  If there is, then the option
> bit itself would be defined in the DHCPv6 policy distribution text,
> and 3484-bis would need to describe the use of the bit in the updated
> policy table.

I agree with your assessment and this approach as a reasonable way
forward.  Go ahead and generate -05 with 3ffe::/16 back in the table.
When that draft is out, I will start a WG Last Call and specifically
request feedback on the privacy bit issue.

Regards,
Brian