Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:43 AM, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> The self-selection addressing model does not suit the deployment
>>> requirements for many types of ipv6 networks, including enterprise,
>>> provider hosting, terrestrial access networks (e.g. docsis / gpon /
>>> ipoe) and others.  If the recommendation for dhcpv6 is dropped, then
>>> there is no recommended ietf model for operator-assigned addressing, and
>>> this would leave a glaring hole in the ipv6 host specification.
>>>
>>
>> That's a fair opinion to hold, but the fact of the matter is that a
>> SHOULD for DHCPv6 conflicts with RFC 7934 and RFC 7844.
>>
>> We shouldn't publish a host requirements document that contradicts the
>> host address assignment BCP and that cites RFC7844 while contradicting that
>> document's recommendation to use stateless in preference to stateful.
>>
>
> Lets start with RFC 7934 it is a set of RECOMMENDATIONS for how networks
> should supply addresses to general purpose hosts.  First, not everything
> fits into that scope and even within that scope as a RECOMMENDATION that
> means "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore
> a particular item" [RFC2119].  So, it by no means precludes the possibility
> that hosts could find them on a network that is only providing addresses
> via DHCPv6. Therefore, a SHOULD for DHCPv6 in the host requirements still
> seems appropriate to me.
>
> As for RFC 7844, it is scoped to mobile hosts that want privacy from the
> DHCP server, and it says "The anonymity profiles have the effect of hiding
> the client identity from the DHCP server.  This is not always desirable.
> ..."  A document that itself recognizes it's primary purpose "is not always
> desirable" even within it's defined scope, isn't a strong argument for
> changing the RECOMMENDED behavior of all host.
>
> Further, a "recommendation to use stateless in preference to stateful"
> isn't a prohibition on stateful, Until, stateful is prohibited or all
> networks are required to provided stateless, a SHOULD for DHCPv6 in the
> host requirements still seems appropriate to me.
>

I should have added; while I don't think you are providing a valid argument
against a SHOULD for DHCPv6 in the host requirements, it is a completely
valid argument against a MUST for DHCPv6 in the host requirements.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================