IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 05 April 2024 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 3B229C151094 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TOLxQFyg7mBN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4605C14F610 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E8338991; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:56:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3JI8Dl5hW527; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:55:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890A338990; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:55:59 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1712332559; bh=tUuSqyqjTWfXrikTg8OLWXmGvngeVwBAKlGrPDsx4PQ=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=N7qFA66R810XIvPWj0ajaCkBj74hUpFev9FDGYvE2cAezRZ29MwpguXUFp/7wNn4C zAsHd0nHkCsJgiYcIjbZhXI5/zwMO5/B/Loe1yH/zpPtmmIoETlxuaIO1cbzgH2oLr jXwdsCSVBQipFOU8EgHb4FTXRuWWzKcM9RwxLpevIfVnNBdYr/z5T1BCa2si0zyG5S u5zRRyF9+SgaPcgsSymSEwUIj5ooXAWwp1bTF4UGPJJJDrS7qEIhjB5oZRrMElWB/S TjC+nvE4h1NpQ+4rTNuH4aq5QBISAHpyj/cpfprD0JEH0tlJt3EB02eryf4+tsH9T7 9zU3Gjaq44rbw==
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8392D1A5; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:55:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>, ipv6@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1nq9V4H9kq+hf4YO-T6OUdYMv8Vmsd3Vpqf264Jm7mrKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <171225751716.18509.12521562864612372012@ietfa.amsl.com> <a4063219-1cd5-4e06-bf42-b0ffebd2b419@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3VrqfRR+4Eee7TOS1L2RAWbfWv87_QJH_u5gzVU1Av7g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nq9V4H9kq+hf4YO-T6OUdYMv8Vmsd3Vpqf264Jm7mrKg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 11:55:59 -0400
Message-ID: <8952.1712332559@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RHp4SkmkYx2zKslAOqfEUMSDijc>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 05 Apr 2024 15:56:08 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > It's not at all clear to me that the burden of implementation here is
    > sufficient to justify constrained devices not implementing the policy
    > table update. If we want to do that, I think we need to explain exactly

I agree.
Today, many industrial "IoT" devices are RPI-equivalent class devices with a
fairly rich environment.
Home devices are less capable, but often as a result, they are single address
space MCUs, so reaching across to find the policy table is actually easier.

    > What then needs to be maintained is a list of known ULAs. I realize
    > that this isn't /that/ different from updating the policy table, but it
    > is a bit simpler in the sense that there's no complexity to it—you're

+1

    > If constrained devices already support the policy table, I do not think
    > this additional work is onerous.

+1


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email