RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Mon, 23 June 2008 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487043A67FA; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5526D3A67FA; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AsahOHkToF9g; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA173A67DA; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,690,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="11927879"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2008 10:24:27 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5NEOR0t019796; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:24:27 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5NEOR2l020710; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:24:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:24:25 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:23:58 -0400
Message-ID: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41DDE@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <485976A1.2010604@ericsson.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcjRhcsmJQNJILEeQrWj1t0fRVHjHADtg00A
References: <20080508140001.790BB28D372@core3.amsl.com> <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41CA4@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com> <485976A1.2010604@ericsson.com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2008 14:24:25.0976 (UTC) FILETIME=[D6DF1F80:01C8D53C]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5193; t=1214231067; x=1215095067; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20<shemant@cisco. com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20I-D=20Action=3Adraft-ietf-6man-ipv6-sub net-model-00.txt |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Suresh=20Krishnan=22=20<suresh.krishnan@ericsson. com>; bh=Lt9nYf0eWq7G6ZfrZs14eSai0GZ/jfrR8Pd7A0No8+0=; b=oj2RoFXV36FQy5polnSxJGFgPC857xhqr5D27T21n2zsLbBA4DC2XCJQ5L bgvGOEi+waXQWoF5IJriBbw3IroBEGOPtTClo2j8FWRxQR/HjdIdz38R63Ty i89UX+1oPo;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org, i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

Suresh,

Thanks very much for the review. As per your feedback, here are the
changes we are making to the draft.

1. This sentence at the end of section 1 will be changed from:

[Finally, this document merely restates and clarifies [RFC4861].]

to  

[Finally, this document mainly restates and clarifies [RFC4861].]

2. Text of Bullet 3 in section 2 will change so that, as per your
request, we make it very explicit that this is a new rule. The old text
is shown below followed by new text.

       [On-link determination SHOULD NOT persist across IPv6 interface
       initializations.  Note that section 5.7 of [RFC4862] describes
       the use of stable storage for addresses acquired with stateless
       address autoconfiguration with a note that the Preferred and
       Valid Lifetimes must be retained if this approach is used.
       However no RFC suggests or recommends retaining the on-link
       prefixes.]


       [On-link determination SHOULD NOT persist across IPv6 interface
       initializations.  Note that this is a new rule specified by this
       document.  Further, section 5.7 of [RFC4862] describes the use of
       stable storage for addresses acquired with stateless address
       autoconfiguration with a note that the Preferred and Valid
       Lifetimes must be retained if this approach is used.  However no
       RFC suggests or recommends retaining the on-link prefixes.]

Regards.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:57 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org; i-d-announce@ietf.org; Erik Nordmark;
ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

Hi Hemant,
   I went through the document and it looks very good. There is just one
thing I would like to comment on.

* The document claims to only clarify RFC4861 but it overreaches a bit. 
If you look at section 2 bullet 3, this lays out a NEW rule for a host
to follow. This rule does not exist in RFC4861. I personally feel that
this rule is intuitive and desirable, but it is certainly not backward
compatible.

Cheers
Suresh

Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Could you please review this draft now that it's a 6man WG work item. 
> So far this version has taken care of comments on an earlier version 
> that the following folks reviewed.
> 
> Suresh Krishnan
> Jinmei Tatuya
> Thomas Narten
> Ralph Droms
> 
> Brian Carpenter sent us a private email on his review of this version.
> We have taken care of his review as follows. 
> 
> At the end of section 2, the following paragraph has been changed from
> 
> [This case is analogous to the behavior specified in the last 
> paragraph of section 7.2.2 of
> [RFC4861]: when address resolution fails, the host SHOULD send an 
> ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable indication as specified in [RFC4861].  
> The specified behavior MAY be extended to cover this case where 
> address resolution cannot be performed.]
> 
> to
> 
> [This case is specified in the last paragraph of section 4 of
> [RFC4943]: when there is no route to destination, the host should send

> an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable indication (for example, a locally 
> delivered error message) as specified in the Terminology section of 
> [RFC4861].]
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hemant
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:00 AM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the

> IETF.
> 
> 
> 	Title           : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between
> Links and Subnet Prefixes
> 	Author(s)       : H. Singh, et al.
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 8
> 	Date            : 2008-05-08
> 
> IPv6 specifies a model of a subnet that is different than the IPv4 
> subnet model.  The subtlety of the differences has resulted in 
> incorrect implementations that do not interoperate.  This document 
> spells out the most important difference; that an IPv6 address isn't 
> automatically associated with an IPv6 on-link prefix.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-
> 00
> .txt
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader 
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the 
> Internet-Draft.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------