IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis

Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayourtch@gmail.com> Fri, 19 June 2015 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ayourtch@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0AD1A88F4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <s5hfc8Eadl8q>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BANNED, message contains text/plain,.exe
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 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, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 s5hfc8Eadl8q for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (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 6A9FB1A88F3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbiq7 with SMTP id iq7so11046300igb.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FngK3xoJmSMs2HAxZD844w1eYGMHeJ/YmqcfMBtb+y4=; b=T2DUCMLNK5lD4XNPTP9xyhaeO7rMB52ln4CKRAcwvOFmxPzQkY6QfU7Fcvt9HYHMyu 4SdFWvSWcqVFkKcW1gD8UCMNK8mXZEze4j8/t80trjMGvS7dJ2WCwuTjVYa5b3FRWVZs Nnto1XKGYq4jA39cPxTCp/V25Kl5Csu6VerE912L2LjMfvxijEk5QuI0SeEPGVjzNso2 z0iMuf+7nOiS56vjZxBHgfCrTE+yIfYJgvW4L6kmsGOtkO9pImxDca1fK5ZqkZTMjAPF iHn7h++/wtBgiQsL/kRdBoO46+rSvPjKnLjaALtbn1rwQORZM4ZnT7aEEIQT3a0CN9hn 8OwQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.13.130 with SMTP id 124mr21325385ion.70.1434709633841; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.137.12 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxodZ_NBhH5HCVR29Ff_K_th=RBWHvbucQs6sqSpxoA1bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20CE2629-7D40-4B5B-833E-4A401308027F@employees.org> <CAAedzxodZ_NBhH5HCVR29Ff_K_th=RBWHvbucQs6sqSpxoA1bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:27:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPi140OuggSQuH6YQvNxQi2C31gfSeQyszKLbMjfc-jgfDCLzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis
From: Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <ayourtch@gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/N5BAOzO85ioLf3p4RXsNc1ZogM0>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 19 Jun 2015 10:27:16 -0000

On 6/19/15, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:
> +1 to extending the lifetime, I suppose
> -1 to obsoleting 6106
>
> """
> Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 6106
>
>    The lifetime's upper bound of 2 * MaxRtrAdvInterval was shown to lead
>    to the expiry of these options on links with a relatively high rate
>    of packet loss.  This revision relaxes the upper bound and sets a
>    higher default value to avoid this problem.
> """
>
> Why not just have a 2-pager that updates 6106 with some discussion of
> lifetime changes?
>

If the Appendix B is the only diff from 6106, then:

+1 to have a short doc like Erik proposes above that makes a point
update relaxing the constraints in 6106

-1 to adopt a doc doing wholesale rewrite of 6106

--a

> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on adopting:
>>
>>     Title           : IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
>> Configuration
>>     Authors     : J. Jeong, S. Park, L. Beloeil, S. Madanapalli
>>     Filename   : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis
>>     Pages       : 18
>>     Date          : 2015-05-09
>>
>>     http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis/
>>
>> as a working group item. Substantive comments and statements of support
>> for adopting this document should be directed to the mailing list.
>> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This adoption call will
>> end on June 22nd, 2015.
>>
>> This document is intended to resolve the issues with RFC6106 documented in
>> draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bob Hinden & Ole Trøan
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email