Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt
Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Sun, 16 July 2017 08:25 UTC
Return-Path: <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
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 ABFAF12EC57 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 01:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
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 9Bx0MwIXd1lt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 01:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (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 0CF36127180 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 01:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 32so88183563qtv.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 01:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gXIsFvKqtBPgLqbrxuTxmSZsdK1WuhJf2b4xTb8DSBw=; b=cCdyI1W6HiwueTJaDdoG6MwfWLfqulUll6m7P4E6tP4ktEJ2QLGFI09TFVZ3SOJsOD CM/qQwOIHnGx8GHQIJ5zwh1VY0pkGpF80WFWQ1owAqZkQZ2sqdmyEmu9JN8xXkcS19Yl kfuSXiU0bVWxfx+6OPtIn8m7KXPZ2S+5ucXhw=
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=gXIsFvKqtBPgLqbrxuTxmSZsdK1WuhJf2b4xTb8DSBw=; b=G5B1bIjNVOa3Q7lrGYEqxpndSkRJ60nwBGDtxmder+BeLqJgWKpjE/4Py2shvF2Ly3 ExDRyDpTtdix1pD3WDPn1lJ5B+2pFFO4+Az88pk9T5D2/YMnMqa8t0Fn3YDnaiPU0Rii mRYPALN1TtF1uhik5jXngQ/cj6rVz8xbMyyhJ6h59X34JsIWVFZjgmVINb2Q/fDc4SiT 5+us8a7bTbUYCOgEB55HO+kNWqauiROXlqsXG+13+XzBIaIZQdos4ukdRIdjRo+4wdKF wxh3le4Cmuc81vHIqLkwkAKDWUCT/Wc6AG8bXkCDHaKXTBUt0Kd3f+eT7IX0CIEVTpEG /O0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110ZHNgP21BBfhuoppOso4Ys2x/+2jsQKlyLkZO6JI5cDkYn17hU SSw8i6afhqTlQn6DRsV1t9Vt2I29llY/
X-Received: by 10.237.34.109 with SMTP id o42mr22271155qtc.217.1500193521060; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 01:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.5.130 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 01:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <fef7bb88-1ebd-bba6-219a-dbc810f0a1b8@gmail.com>
References: <149909644776.22718.16227939850699261560@ietfa.amsl.com> <fef7bb88-1ebd-bba6-219a-dbc810f0a1b8@gmail.com>
From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 04:25:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOSSMjXDqWm_EvZqmCACoTESZpj-vMywkL8GqByYnC=DFKAa8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140a004eae89005546b0545"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ql8HvyolqQMXwZEy0lNAAImLttk>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 08:25:25 -0000
Hi Brian, On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Some comments, but not a full review: > > > - IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] > > Is this still worth mentioning? > Probably not, we'll remove this in the next draft. How do you feel about Frame Relay? > > - IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072] > > > > In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible > > to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: > > Shouldn't PPP be in this list, not the previous list? > Yes. > > > - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address > > Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] > > > > - Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and > > Routers" [RFC4213] > > > > **BIS Do we want a small section somewhere on UDP IPv6 tunneling, and > > issues like RFC 6935, or 6936?** > > Maybe. But the field is evolving: Teredo is surely obsolescent, there's > also TSP (RFC5572), and draft-ietf-intarea-gue is in progress. So I wonder > what you can really say. > > > 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 > > > > The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This > > specification MUST be supported. > > > > **BIS Again, update for RFC 2460 -bis ** > > > > Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as > > described in RFC 2460. > > As well as s/2460/8200/, I suggest s/processed/treated/ to avoid another > debate about the meaning of 'processed' ;-). > > (And don't forget s/1981/8201/.) > Thanks, we'll make all those updates. > > > 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 > ... > > and there is essentially no reported experience from usage. > > Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time. > > > > **BIS Are these used? Do we need to modify the text for that? ** > > I don't think so. They appear to be harmless and maybe somebody will > need them one day, so there is no obvious argument for deprecation. > K, we'll remove the note. > > > 5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 > ... > > Hosts that may be deployed in such multihomed environments SHOULD > > follow the guidance given in [RFC8028]. > > Which should therefore be listed as a Normative reference. > Thanks, we'll update that to Normative. > > > 6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 > > > > The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. > > > > **BIS Update to 4291-bis ** > > Maybe not :-( > I still have hope..... > > > **BIS Add note on Why /64? RFC 7421, after the conclusion of the > > RFC4291-bis (lengthy!!!) discussions on the 64-bit IID topic. But no > > need for /127 p2p text RFC 6164. And no need for note on IID > > significance, as per RFC 7136. ** > > I'm not sure we need to mention RFC 7421 here at all. If 4291bis gets > published, it will be mentioned there. If it doesn't get published, > 64 remains fixed anyway. > Thanks for the feedback. > > > 6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 > > > > Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as > > defined in either [RFC4862] or [RFC7217]. > > That's wrong, surely? SLAAC is defined in 4862, and 7217 doesn't even > formally update it. I think you should simply delete 'or [RFC7217]'. > > It is recommended that, > > unless there is a specific requirement for MAC addresses to be > > embedded in an IID, nodes follow the procedure in RFC7217 to generate > > SLAAC-based addresses. > > That only applies if a stable IID is wanted. I would suggest: > > It is recommended that, > unless there is a specific requirement for MAC addresses to be > embedded in an IID, nodes follow the procedures in [RFC7217] > or [RFC4941] (see below) to generate SLAAC-based addresses. > > (I think we've already established that it's possible to operate > a node that has no stable global-scope address.) > OK, this text looks fine to me. > > > 6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 > > > > IPv6 nodes will invariably have multiple addresses configured > > simultaneously, and thus will need to choose which addresses to use > > for which communications. The rules specified in the Default Address > > Selection for IPv6 [RFC6724] document MUST be implemented. > > I am concerned about the famous rule 5.5 in RFC6724. It's optional there, > but elsewhere you have a SHOULD for RFC8028, whose section 3.3 in turn > promotes rule 5.5 to a SHOULD. Could we add that promotion here > too? Otherwise there is a complicated trail for implementers to follow. > I like this idea, how about. Since RFC 8028 updates rule 5.5 from RFC 6724 implementations SHOULD implement this rule. > > > 14. Router-Specific Functionality > > I think you should require BCP198 (RFC7068) support. > Interesting thought (should be RFC7608). I don't have a problem adding this, I'll check with the co-authors. > > Regards > Brian > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt internet-drafts
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Timothy Winters
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Erik Kline
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Job Snijders
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Sander Steffann
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt David Farmer
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt David Farmer
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Morizot Timothy S
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Brian E Carpenter
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Morizot Timothy S
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Tim Chown
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Tim Chown
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Nick Hilliard
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Tim Chown
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Timothy Winters
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Bob Hinden
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Brian E Carpenter
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt Templin, Fred L