Re: [IPv6] Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag>

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim,

Thank you for the feedback!

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:44 PM Tim Chown
<Tim.Chown=[e-mail]> wrote:
> Section 1:
> "This solves the scaling issues
>    because the amount of state that has to be maintained by the network
>    does not depend on how many addresses are in use.”
>
> I think it always depends on the number of addresses, perhaps you mean “devices” as devices can have one prefix for their needs rather than multiple addresses?

What we are trying to say is that now the network needs to scale to
the number of devices, not to the number of addresses (which can be
10-20 times more).

Would this read better:

"This solves the scaling issues because the amount of state that has
to be maintained by the network depends on the number of devices and
does not depend anymore on how many addresses those devices are
using."

?

> (The justification for the PD draft probably doesn’t need to be repeated in this document.)

Yes, there is a significant overlap in the justification/problem
statement. The goal is for this draft to be comprehensible w/o reading
the PD document first.

> Section 3:
> “This is suboptimal” - change to “Using SLAAC would be suboptimal”
> Else I read it as putting the info in the RA as being suboptimal.

Fixed, thank you!

> Section 4:
> Typo “opearator"
>
> Section 5.1:
> Typo “DHPCv6”

Both fixed.

> Section 7.1:
> The changes to RFC 4861 section 4.6.2 are a little confusing as presented.
> The reserved field was originally 6 bits, then became 5 bits with the R bit of RFC 6275, and will now be 4 bits with the new P bit.
> But the text seems to be written as a change from A and 6 bits?

Yes, you are right, I'm not sure how to handle this. RFC6275 does not
formally update RFC4861, so there is no text which can be easily
updated.

Maybe we can do this:

* do not use "old text"/"new text" format.
* say smth like "this document makes the following changes to the
Prefix Information Option (Section 4.6.2 of RFC4861, updated by
RFC6275):
Reduces the Reserved field from 5 bits to 4 bits and introduces a P
which is 1-bit DHCPv6-PD flag. When set, indicates that this prefix
SHOULD NOT be used for stateless address configuration. Instead the
host SHOULD request a dedicated prefix via DHCPv6-PD and use that
prefix for stateless address configuration."
* provide an illustration of the new PIO format.

Would it be less confusing?

> As an aside I was also surprised that RFC 4861 doesn’t say “Updated by RFC 6275” in its header.

Good catch. [chair hat on] I guess we need to do smth about that - I
also missed the fact the Reserved field is 5, not 6 bits, as RFC 6275
is not linked.

> Section 7.2:
> Typo “collink” should now be “ietf”
> And “as if the A”, adding “the”.
> Section 8:
> Typo “might sent” -> “might send” and “ignore A flag” -> “ignore the A flag”

Fixed.

-- 
Cheers, Jen Linkova