Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Warren Kumari <> Tue, 14 November 2017 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4775B127863 for <>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:41:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 ekxgtVjyl1fd for <>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:41:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 568B0127735 for <>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:41:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u40so16169530wrf.10 for <>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:41:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=I+3e9bjEKdduncQH29V/vOasDKp5dyjvR+wn5upYBmQ=; b=aGz0oiwg6aLf/hWvFyd5akTblhazTebY1XrrXFWTJJxZ7XViGbZIcMe6ATC4p+qBPg cBdi+kfZCafW+I7AFxMtec+miMzNleMY9N7okRi1t5zkJIe9Nrzu686SCFeApiy70rHk SHFfia6uFI/QYbo+zwD2vEiQd9hSW8RMJEbep3OVNFsCeL7+fmJtu2Om3akFjLcgVY2V rb6CrbVgyGyLuzEtNefIXaeQsOu8tG3a20V0G/mZ5fVxa+IHffCGjlyYOE2sWyIiyrSu y0CJhAH7p/hN5ESBy5nOm0t7wphV6OmIQY6xMw+/yrnuSwZh4yMeFPvbc3VOixEZlWtF fsFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=I+3e9bjEKdduncQH29V/vOasDKp5dyjvR+wn5upYBmQ=; b=qEG7ZesqXEeLffocGVGvPgfvTp1yXJG52etQ4JoYpL7+GLghUA1S6X5Kklo+lX05B3 HhnNmfqQSIfjwMbF5MA0Fzsps+b0pwSxTmWGCNNYQ2dXl0SDLh9SFcJKNn1N+YwFFkTU 401kWHyRtrQ8XV8SQsDSINm4Y5iYQv+5Xp6HrmtEgyEIu/OJar/E43ZTaB4wI8lxbMhy 4LfGu9UAMjZix1hKScSbKLrLF962fI0WWVhD5KBtxsbo9KIvN7gnUzQzOIruq/OqRpuG lb7JLp/pK84vXSe0LmymDcxljcsrhJxK9H8QzGZvuKfPP++7jywQoLtR5imxCwZwulIk 286g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5+P4EI2Y+2sAHdBOJkltBhZMrjUfmKonCsHpp0AKYBN/bqzlcW B3hj6m/Uzk4XtTZ8uxFXwzqpeiI+lOtc6r48CRyuXQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZCki/FzQrFLHVh1x8I53Hj3QNnDNt+a6/KcEnOPnBrh75WAamR2J1EiOx0r1NDktdGJYrYQl/pODoCa8V6tJ0=
X-Received: by with SMTP id 6mr8670226wrs.112.1510627301707; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:41:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:41:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:41:01 +0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: Mark Smith <>, Fernando Gont <>, " WG" <>, "" <>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 02:41:45 -0000

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Mark Smith <> wrote:
> Why are we holding this document up on this?
> Half baked cakes aren't cakes, even though they may look like them.
> FWIW, "we" aren't holding up this document.   It's in AUTH48.   The working
> group already has consensus on the document, the IESG has approved it, and
> at this point the only changes allowed are editorial changes that do not
> substantively change what the document says.   The working group has no
> agency here: this is entirely up to the authors and the AD.

Yup, but the AD is closely watching the discussion, because what the
WG wants is critical.

I held up publication because Fernando claimed that this was a
protocol change, and so doing this in V6OPS was a process violation --
as this was right before the meeting I decided it made sense to hold
publication so that A: I could get feedback from the WGs and B: I
could talk to Suresh (in his capacity as 6MAN AD).

Neither Suresh nor I think that this is a protocol change (and these
isn't really even a very fast V6OPS cannot touch protocol) - at the
moment I'm very strongly leaning towards just publishing it, although
(based on discussions with Suresh) I'm *considering* that this should
be Informational instead

Note that versions -04, -05, -06 of the document were Informational;
the GenArt (and other feedback) questioned the BCP status, and it was
(IMO) right on the hairy edge of Informational / BCP (enough that I
asked the IESG to comment on the status during eval). It was right on
the edge before, the new text, WG discussion (and my discussions with
Suresh) may have tipped it over to Informational.

I would feel out the WG about this - would you be OK with this being
Info (and getting it out the door)?

I feel I also owe the WG (and authors) an apology - this has been a
painful process and taken up way more of your time than it should

> If the authors or the AD were to make substantive changes to the document,
> that would be grounds for an appeal by the working group.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.