Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Wed, 08 March 2017 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 AEE511295BE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:20:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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=google.com
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 wK4ZiLp-2Hfd for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x230.google.com (mail-pg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EB401294FB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 77so17025630pgc.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 12:20:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=96ux6/yHb2C1ltc1qZjZ82wH2wDibNnlcVte8jvrm3I=; b=L3bbP8jIn37QLzARs/7jQaAE+D0g+kRlwpaxxS5waGhkCeVfcjHbKAJRt0mwWnbpK/ umK0cRilUWu8yskpxOugETdYTcrlmoS/NqrCt4VVWsW8zmenWczsIGU6KvQjBHhsD8C5 vGoff2ha8ECP4Ty3C+hlrB+xzdwG4MYcCwxsUd6L/Pcg8kRDlNy+mQhvMJTX9/g2/Npr vsnP+y9UvDrPThrqJNHUVXNwJbAnTqHHczJ4WVaVAQ2snybx4S4CITLuRkIdcdRMG0Id qBBOCWR7G5zQCfwhfkSPxv+KFdSdOVLQ1/UQ/Od2+4Gn+0yh0gzcQmpBWGZLFe6kUD3H nOag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=96ux6/yHb2C1ltc1qZjZ82wH2wDibNnlcVte8jvrm3I=; b=BcXcZmxP3CSE6TMafn3p0JuCwvF6P/hp+vw7j5n28RLU3zGM7fH+FfOucnPNufqpj9 09rsPNL3YmvL5Ez0hvQTnkxCLMWelnK1dPrLkVVzls2tFF8pOr7o4cm8qpZUHleP+Xsb 6KL+NxUPaOxBM8PDphGsz7S4eCo9ZLFAX9H6z9NDKWBf1ey/CAlPC13DCyvkmKbVtp+6 2SZCDBBYPoSkDKD39unAwTn0EhmkFuxINWoNCprI0lfp+hoGfz9aB2DGGxQmWtz32Vxd E/9hU+Gq5FKxq2yAqNQEv/7lR84dPPIWpfIzeGw6bqm+uItqcJK+BnVgF6q2DmttweAv E0VQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n2Qd4r99YPasqtehIv8dFfRSkov5xM/5KE0mR3MtH2BswuVNBWOwWt31W9KNtst5AK
X-Received: by 10.99.4.134 with SMTP id 128mr9203564pge.77.1489004440559; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 12:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-230-134.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.230.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f21sm7820641pff.48.2017.03.08.12.20.39 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Mar 2017 12:20:39 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_59C50459-0CB9-4F67-9AF4-B06DE994B3C8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:20:38 -0800
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com> <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com> <m1ck5mu-0000GaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com> <CAOSSMjW_fPz3RdPyK=e-EyvyW4GawFAr3zcGLkBzDcR8Ws2MUw@mail.gmail.com> <90292C5E-013D-4B7C-B496-8A88C7285CD7@google.com> <CAOSSMjXf1ah6nrAorf+mpnOxXBpHg6difgCo4mQ6rPVZoU8CSw@mail.gmail.com> <7FAD8D2B-B50E-44C5-AAA3-0C91621D9D54@google.com> <CAOSSMjX4Rq969cTuAU+sqWmW7Rh2-nxjd1vpSkeAevVZTed1HA@mail.gmail.com> <ED8E5513-A522-4D37-A0A2-0960CF3E5394@google.com> <36251EE1-309C-44B5-BEAE-591889492547@employees.org>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <36251EE1-309C-44B5-BEAE-591889492547@employees.org>
Message-Id: <9B6D49C1-D793-465B-A395-28147BD22FAC@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/CQ9WAlg4TfxuWn4CknM2ARWmrQg>
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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 20:20:42 -0000

On Mar 7, 2017, at 13:41, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2017, at 22:22, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> In summary, there is a deficit of RFC 2119 keyword language here, and we have to make the case that the standards texts make a sufficiently strong implicit case rather than an explicit normative requirement.
>> 
>> As explained above, it sure looks to me like a very fair reading of the implicit requirements language is that LwIP is within the limits of RFC 4291, RFC 4861 and RFC 4862 when it choose the option of ignoring PIO elements with invalid prefix length for IID on the underlying link type.
>> 
>> Yes, the USGv6 and IPv6 Ready Logo tests are well within their rights to apply additional requirements beyond the IETF standards, but it seems like a strict interpretation of the standards allow for LwIP to claim conformance.
>> 
>> How can we counter this argument?
> 
> We're not writing law, we're specifying what it takes to have implementations of a specification interoperate.

I agree, and I contend there's something missing here in what we’ve said it takes to interoperate.

> That implementation would fail to interoperate.

As I wrote to the other participants in this exchange off list, I remain convinced that the interoperability issue here is due to system administrators ignoring the recommendation in RFC 4862 to always use a valid Prefix Length for the link type in PIO elements without also ensuring that all hosts on the link implement behavior that RFC 4861 implies is OPTIONAL for performing on-link determination.

Here I will add that I’m not going to push for changes to LwIP either locally or upstream until I’m persuaded this interpretation of the existing text is wrong.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>