Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Fri, 24 February 2017 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 C2A611294EE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:02:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 Whp4k6t8ynDR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:02:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5881E1294ED for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:02:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE25B28 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:02:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id crW3Ge06GpzL for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:02:12 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ua0-f197.google.com (mail-ua0-f197.google.com [209.85.217.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76550269 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:02:12 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-ua0-f197.google.com with SMTP id 48so17411109uaf.7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:02:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8PmaLX+HLMHeZrn/YhOpvMevm/idCVQDIDkWAxe61/U=; b=N/slMu64X96nKyajVSZTCDTw8Ux0IsMDDvU1zokMoNLZVgNOKn0atyyQBX3DkJ4UZg JYIzl4BGg0ejK8oCC6VtpAeurG/PMF5kEsF0huzwdKHVFd16307iFHAYjKh47CC3lSdL C+HK4DOHa9gnRCp5YSrn+LNUhSAdGnCiQ7NCBPsIjdJZ2HuRhLkmahD2cNejtPui8qpd ycSH3mOVEGNWkT++f7XbqlW3SEQ3UvoyXSzbCEeVSQRCSizQ1xa7snrK9vGLk9MtlWes C1f5sSItHeZsmGU+MK0Q1irRcfmKlOkiH4BbfuTymau3/tD1i7UnCvvI1ohYrPt9eCa7 mysQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8PmaLX+HLMHeZrn/YhOpvMevm/idCVQDIDkWAxe61/U=; b=YbrQyPi4I1GwUcsBi86LJ1x99jsc23yjez10khcknU4KZpzKfgMvrj08z7lfK/qyJX /9gwoB06LsMqs3OujH3+L4nFoigPkoYe4fU76Vjk+pz97ptDxdAF/Mjbl1lpL9hQGaJq Dsg5HkiXp5eS+K3YhGTc3yXHvotPQvqLljt6GXi8l/4sP7EIfbOZ/tNpAt5/63VO+TFZ hOR/AGHMG1d9uieoYW2eIiy5vv5LqVIgHnqXgPK3qFStD28dht7ROyFZcrj2yrooPI4n XhkfL+ckRb0KmNgpfSe70x4woVbiDlF04zhc5EiGxdMMD5qdhlzkcMhZsNx8VQUqSQ5A jNuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lNuiy8Z+NUAKiHgNY9d6DWoEsBbvzA13VRqhKYOLuCLA4GFrq0SRB5iw5B2uDt6aeyxtugJZqdPbxzqA2393Ci07XqCZNJuB3MF5VwkGwUIV05K5BMreZVpvxmD6+FtAy5yyXQ5RJf5rU=
X-Received: by 10.31.192.204 with SMTP id q195mr1986999vkf.155.1487966531921; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:02:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.192.204 with SMTP id q195mr1986985vkf.155.1487966531764; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:02:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.89.71 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:02:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaYO=uYgVfSZ0SoSe0SujJ1xgwEKE8WLzo_keJHywgXTtg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAN-Dau0s04c=RV0Y8AGaxBPFui41TWPTB+5o0K2Lj-iah0An1w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYirty22iGiEjEaYq3_KA1FZhxBTOBWuFOXQ9C-WPd5xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0n6oFm538XdJOcuO1yg92BCDD3mBu5YfBVm_+g-gtcKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYO=uYgVfSZ0SoSe0SujJ1xgwEKE8WLzo_keJHywgXTtg@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:02:11 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1vJV5O_Ythp6THkAu4-YZXV82Upny1V+ybbjCVZQQX=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114388cc9053c905494c3415
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/CBkrpCRjTwyU0mx19X0EO2ZGdmI>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:02:14 -0000

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Christopher Morrow <
christopher.morrow@gmail.com>; wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:51 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>; wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Christopher Morrow <
>> christopher.morrow@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>>> sorry, a clarification request below.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:42 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>; wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:11 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 03:11, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me be more specific then: are you proposing that vendors write code
>>>>> to allow or disallow interface subnets which aren't /64 (or /127)? This
>>>>> is a binary choice; a vendor needs to choose one way or another.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t know how I can be more clear about this: I insist that general
>>>>> purpose host operating system developers should be expressly permitted to
>>>>> write code that declines to accept subnet prefixes of any length other than
>>>>> /64 on the grounds that these are not used in general IPv6 networking and
>>>>> the successor to RFC 4291 continues to say so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know there are operating systems with billions of units in the field
>>>>> today that do exactly this because RFC 4291 and its predecessors have for
>>>>> years given them clear license to do so, and I don’t want to see the
>>>>> publication of I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis as RFC come to remove this license
>>>>> as a side effect of promoting IPv6 to full Standard category.
>>>>>
>>>>> You want to remove that license? I suppose we can continue discussing
>>>>> that, but I think you should try to do it in a separate draft once IPv6 is
>>>>> officially promoted.
>>>>>
>>>>> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would not want to make code that does /64 only out of compliance with
>>>> the spec, especially for SLAAC.  I would like to discourage that stance,
>>>> maybe for DHCP, but for sure for manual configuration if that mode is
>>>> provided.  But, I don't see /64 only as a invalid stance for an host OS to
>>>> take.  But neither do I want the spec to disallow non-/64 for DHCP, manual
>>>> configuration, or potential new modes of configuration if we ever get
>>>> there.  I think SLAAC should to remain /64 only. I think DHCP and manual
>>>> configuration should be encourage to support non-/64 options, but even they
>>>> should allow /64 only.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> please restate your last sentence... I think you missed a word or three?
>>>
>>
>> It's still ok for a host OSes to do /64 only with DHCP and manual config,
>> not preferred.  I'd prefer host OSes support non-/64 as well for DHCP and
>> manual config, but not mandatory.  Only /64 should be REQUIRED of anyone,
>> host, router, or what ever.  Non-/64 should be OPTIONAL for everyone.
>>
>> Is that clearer?
>>
>>
> clearer, but not what I was expecting...
>
> OPTIONAL means 'will not happen without customer loud voices' (generally).
> I'm worried that OPTIONAL is going to cause problems :(
>

I was trying to be conservative in the change to push through the process.
I'd be open to RECOMMENDED, but I don't see REQUIRED as an option, it would
break too much

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================