Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@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 62E091294DF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 xrasrNvbku3m for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x232.google.com (mail-qt0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::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 8B7341294DB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x232.google.com with SMTP id n21so24994571qta.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:36:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Vow6dX2TDrkUleDoaViEgVUIpzwGbRsgDJsbE7hEsU4=; b=R/BJcPHb8H7UBrSLpyBhCrpS7FOXAhn8ar5J6wot89kK+0g1JpL0quUjYHWYyRW/Dt 9YXw9/rTB0UP4UsSR4MP7CCujidE54IMEUGlFi+49mfRZXsjnVGC9IBxn2db8DjHTNdW YtqdXrVgWMcj73IuRB7H2StI+GDyOE6Crifuh8BhYgLjJukDOA22NXlWxjJTB6TColRP l5g1pN9LHHTTT2hiNYhateTPQzkfNdeYngPEXq8V0lpOKtJE02dKlt+NMB94Rcxl3IVJ BYrgaPvy2kBqUduQhHB7e1URLtXAXK+S2lMTaYQmOsxljeqbC6MQ7r3ySyYpy/bDD3dT vuUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vow6dX2TDrkUleDoaViEgVUIpzwGbRsgDJsbE7hEsU4=; b=bzqcEZBUL69BzP+FCBNOmKoZF2Iv+iC07ItTl3362Zo8i5FTzV098/l4wdog234CZV sZJLIIQwLfkUlm9m19R3BmABRmFVHiQkYKra5LSr6tjZgopmPqcwS5YFzyvtOEhWaI3k u73lJgwGV1QJ+q2v8a4p1tBpweT+rKQ4yepJvnNEfYIUzQWa/aMa+5l5+jfJa5f0mjO4 pHqPbbL6M3DcI1yWuNu1SVRmeeak6MamRhiqOxzLWcM4T0bLR6xiQvWu0xaLwtlEYJ9W GdleOFGUU4nwUt/Qelta/DPhC7o7fEcWqBFrDmffBx+j8TK4hZwfZ+dn8ICdvstWqes1 IMWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nI4gmrVAt08tfdj6SOQuEh/9jXB4Q/hAg7mFwwiY0PZdQDmLxnMGoi+dLFlfTLGAMtFCQU9iFIeZLB9g==
X-Received: by 10.200.53.209 with SMTP id l17mr4320492qtb.281.1487964983755; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:36:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.91.71 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:36:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0s04c=RV0Y8AGaxBPFui41TWPTB+5o0K2Lj-iah0An1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAN-Dau0s04c=RV0Y8AGaxBPFui41TWPTB+5o0K2Lj-iah0An1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:36:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaYirty22iGiEjEaYq3_KA1FZhxBTOBWuFOXQ9C-WPd5xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143c7b04b8ddc05494bd87b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/NHRPFlKAd9LutGSedQwuPLvtv7g>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:36:26 -0000

sorry, a clarification request below.

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:42 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>; wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:11 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:
>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 03:11, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let me be more specific then: are you proposing that vendors write code
>> to allow or disallow interface subnets which aren't /64 (or /127)? This
>> is a binary choice; a vendor needs to choose one way or another.
>>
>>
>> I don’t know how I can be more clear about this: I insist that general
>> purpose host operating system developers should be expressly permitted to
>> write code that declines to accept subnet prefixes of any length other than
>> /64 on the grounds that these are not used in general IPv6 networking and
>> the successor to RFC 4291 continues to say so.
>>
>> I know there are operating systems with billions of units in the field
>> today that do exactly this because RFC 4291 and its predecessors have for
>> years given them clear license to do so, and I don’t want to see the
>> publication of I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis as RFC come to remove this license
>> as a side effect of promoting IPv6 to full Standard category.
>>
>> You want to remove that license? I suppose we can continue discussing
>> that, but I think you should try to do it in a separate draft once IPv6 is
>> officially promoted.
>>
>> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>>
>
> I would not want to make code that does /64 only out of compliance with
> the spec, especially for SLAAC.  I would like to discourage that stance,
> maybe for DHCP, but for sure for manual configuration if that mode is
> provided.  But, I don't see /64 only as a invalid stance for an host OS to
> take.  But neither do I want the spec to disallow non-/64 for DHCP, manual
> configuration, or potential new modes of configuration if we ever get
> there.  I think SLAAC should to remain /64 only. I think DHCP and manual
> configuration should be encourage to support non-/64 options, but even they
> should allow /64 only.
>
>
please restate your last sentence... I think you missed a word or three?


> thanks
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
> ===============================================
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>