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

Joe Touch <> Sat, 11 November 2017 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D75126C83; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:41:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.99
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 wUdVupIr9XDe; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39F11124B09; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:41:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Vt90UausM7pCdnIwsiPydA5D9Uq9+P95j49W/37jBac=; b=NHV1l14WdIHPOADyATCkXjnaMM Hi+kHAX3ZCsJzK5LDB6C9cjbqEbl62fwrihuKL0KB39LtEJuGbwr0h5dEUiIjjR9G5bZ852g7IiPW k7w02/yaYKiRx86o2jXEtaQ5x0EeS2tt7TyclADczuUot6nrIzyhUa7x00SwbYxIUbTe/bvbjfTV6 eNY5cIAw/nU3dJEHDQJqMOvGVVpXTNWmh45Y7RsHkC2M/5sYzOT2dS2rK+Xk93zMF+nvbkG6xgD5s /h6So36QEIeg7H2BQFVd0SGbvaZrVTxjMr1qJSDPhmt6pQJpqny2CdlYXhbbSZ1DuPzPZBtT9xhPV s6Uh323A==;
Received: from ([]:62940 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1eDJrR-003O9z-8L; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:41:25 -0500
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Ole Troan <>, Fernando Gont <>
Cc:, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Joe Touch <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:41:19 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:41:28 -0000

On 11/10/2017 2:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> More on the philosophy side of the argument, WG Charters are a tool to
> allow the chairs and AD to control mission creep. They aren't sacred
> texts. So IMHO the real question is not whether this is strictly speaking
> a protocol extension, but whether it's a useful thing for the IETF to
> publish.
FWIW, I would agree with that if this were an issue of WG focus creep. 
AFAICT, the issue appears to go much deeper, which means it's an Area
boundary issue if it is indeed a protocol extension.

IMO, OPS stays in the lane of suggesting sets of *existing* protocol
parameters and features, or indicates where MAYs and SHOULDs can be
relaxed (or not) - all of this remains compliant with the protocol.
Changes to the protocol should not be considered operational decisions,
again IMO.