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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 09 November 2017 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE25F12949E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:23:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Lx-K-taiLa_4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:23:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B142129451 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:22:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.83] (unknown [181.165.119.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07B24826E6; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 19:22:45 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAAedzxpLL26kDi1yzB=rDQjuNOpb64wtCBMcP+VYf=dc54rF7w@mail.gmail.com> <9e1368ec-d2f0-f508-3928-522a43d8f6e0@gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLVh81g0_k+u7iwx1r4Q0J=5Zi3iTK1riUnvAEron625A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <51146afe-6756-35cf-c995-7217b9cabf3e@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:24:31 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iLVh81g0_k+u7iwx1r4Q0J=5Zi3iTK1riUnvAEron625A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/8i7Tqs6nov36hrBkaXFsAb3WVpU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 18:23:16 -0000

On 11/09/2017 03:54 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>
>> Just a reminder, this draft was approved by the IESG a while ago
>> and is in state "RFC Ed Queue : AUTH48 for 23 days". This unique
>> unicast has been in there for a long time, although the phrasing
>> was clarified in the last couple of months, which is what WG
>> and IETF Last Calls are for.
>>
> 
> ... and in the interest of transparency -- the document was all
> approved on Nov 6th; on Nov 7th Fernando sent the above mail (and also
> separate mail to myself, saying that this was violating v6ops charter
> and needed to have been done in 6MAN).

FWIW, and as noted in my original email, I got to re-read this document
as a result of the recent thread "Security: Unique IPv6 Prefix per Host"
on v6ops (the Subject caught my eyes).

Based on the discussion in v6ops, I decided to re-read the document in
question. And when I did, Oct 31, I asked the group if this wasn't a
protocol spec
(<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/33uJaFp2OK__oAPUHtFMkMstRT4/?qid=0dbbac2c1c98334231cf7c1d2bbb326b>).
There was no response on-list.


I tried to track when the text on Section 4 was added, and it seems to
have happened on Sept 14
(<https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-09.txt>),
way after IETF Last Call, and apparently also after some IESG members
have balloted on this document.

Certainly I wished that my timing would have been better.. but it looks
like even if I had reviewed this document during the IETF LC, I wouldn't
have caught this, since the change was applied *after* IETF LC. It even
seems to have been applied after Suresh cleared his DISCUSS.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492