Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 16 July 2017 04:06 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 D167B127735 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 avEV_5HP-89w for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com (mail-pf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (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 796181252BA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id q86so62087253pfl.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oHbsRZu4hxl6inY694yaPOPW7gGZMhpTcXnk+xSONs4=; b=Ze/orWdqiJXCIMXkSKs/nOew1xum4MmzGujbuiufWz06BmWx8/ryl37qNzRuO3oNaJ bpvrgbRCT6jBeFKUREMG7ycLVKSw7VZQNPYS16PaUngSkvY3L+SCbglxWR1RvF1BykTj p3PLs1QPYON7OdCjvN41dy5Ov8dOrSPBdFGtltvG2Q4GWFxnGHPt2uAhPgQjubYDYrpt BMsRl4bv/ERBcH65TRm/ePQuIi9uMn5RwBnTWB2HrUNUnDC0cpoCy7PRIbJQRxZK16JX VoaDHfC1iBfDdhA9X7V88YufXndXWwUM/wII/QhHs3/dpRCQlWBh4lYLDtYh7nsbyU0J Gxtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oHbsRZu4hxl6inY694yaPOPW7gGZMhpTcXnk+xSONs4=; b=S9+xVMvcpcDm/d/ye/MnhnLexxnKKjS3FjsWqrVr9MJ3apcb1zPmCvqfikaMaOcYDl 5/VVXUs2k8vUy+x0icSv2KcsGsZEPeQugWjjjAwDehkhGyEunUAqYi597nfuqYmaICHf daeA4PrXe6OOjlwm/z9pipQ+jfIxpl6GIlfSlzIuHAfiRR0fwHJSRXRzohoBfv1H7lve GtNLFkY5rU5EkzHPpP7WjMW6/8Cm2YGEXWW96u39vBVBieSEVYhNn412sFszM0nMKaMc +mXjiltJPtecNMLHeM1aMMf/TxFGjkKFWUXyUqlMh1dV2pQiNlNkjVWDT4arKqyzWY0S j9EQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112SNoLb89r0QIQyX+NCVVKa4e4aDq1Sjzf+z3cdHh+3j36cIhJV GrRNsgbiwu9NXjiw
X-Received: by 10.99.110.7 with SMTP id j7mr22567953pgc.169.1500177972800; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (69.21.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [123.255.21.69]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m79sm27877175pfk.35.2017.07.15.21.06.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt
To: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <149909644776.22718.16227939850699261560@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <fef7bb88-1ebd-bba6-219a-dbc810f0a1b8@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:06:08 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <149909644776.22718.16227939850699261560@ietfa.amsl.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/FgxYtCKAmNWtHKgNx85BuL_Wuz8>
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 04:06:15 -0000
Hi, Some comments, but not a full review: > - IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] Is this still worth mentioning? > - IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072] > > In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible > to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: Shouldn't PPP be in this list, not the previous list? > - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address > Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] > > - Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and > Routers" [RFC4213] > > **BIS Do we want a small section somewhere on UDP IPv6 tunneling, and > issues like RFC 6935, or 6936?** Maybe. But the field is evolving: Teredo is surely obsolescent, there's also TSP (RFC5572), and draft-ietf-intarea-gue is in progress. So I wonder what you can really say. > 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 > > The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This > specification MUST be supported. > > **BIS Again, update for RFC 2460 -bis ** > > Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as > described in RFC 2460. As well as s/2460/8200/, I suggest s/processed/treated/ to avoid another debate about the meaning of 'processed' ;-). (And don't forget s/1981/8201/.) > 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 ... > and there is essentially no reported experience from usage. > Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time. > > **BIS Are these used? Do we need to modify the text for that? ** I don't think so. They appear to be harmless and maybe somebody will need them one day, so there is no obvious argument for deprecation. > 5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 ... > Hosts that may be deployed in such multihomed environments SHOULD > follow the guidance given in [RFC8028]. Which should therefore be listed as a Normative reference. > 6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 > > The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. > > **BIS Update to 4291-bis ** Maybe not :-( > **BIS Add note on Why /64? RFC 7421, after the conclusion of the > RFC4291-bis (lengthy!!!) discussions on the 64-bit IID topic. But no > need for /127 p2p text RFC 6164. And no need for note on IID > significance, as per RFC 7136. ** I'm not sure we need to mention RFC 7421 here at all. If 4291bis gets published, it will be mentioned there. If it doesn't get published, 64 remains fixed anyway. > 6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 > > Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as > defined in either [RFC4862] or [RFC7217]. That's wrong, surely? SLAAC is defined in 4862, and 7217 doesn't even formally update it. I think you should simply delete 'or [RFC7217]'. > It is recommended that, > unless there is a specific requirement for MAC addresses to be > embedded in an IID, nodes follow the procedure in RFC7217 to generate > SLAAC-based addresses. That only applies if a stable IID is wanted. I would suggest: It is recommended that, unless there is a specific requirement for MAC addresses to be embedded in an IID, nodes follow the procedures in [RFC7217] or [RFC4941] (see below) to generate SLAAC-based addresses. (I think we've already established that it's possible to operate a node that has no stable global-scope address.) > 6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 > > IPv6 nodes will invariably have multiple addresses configured > simultaneously, and thus will need to choose which addresses to use > for which communications. The rules specified in the Default Address > Selection for IPv6 [RFC6724] document MUST be implemented. I am concerned about the famous rule 5.5 in RFC6724. It's optional there, but elsewhere you have a SHOULD for RFC8028, whose section 3.3 in turn promotes rule 5.5 to a SHOULD. Could we add that promotion here too? Otherwise there is a complicated trail for implementers to follow. > 14. Router-Specific Functionality I think you should require BCP198 (RFC7068) support. Regards Brian
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt internet-drafts
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Timothy Winters
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Erik Kline
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Job Snijders
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Sander Steffann
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt David Farmer
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt David Farmer
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Morizot Timothy S
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Brian E Carpenter
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Morizot Timothy S
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Tim Chown
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Tim Chown
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Nick Hilliard
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Tim Chown
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Timothy Winters
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Bob Hinden
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Brian E Carpenter
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L