Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Fernando,

> On 11 Nov 2017, at 05:04, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 11/10/2017 05:42 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> 1) My comment to the list was essentially arguing that this
>>> document contains a protocol specification, and such part is not
>>> suitable. I think it should be easy to converge on something
>>> regarding this one:
>>> 
>>> Can anyone (you, for instance), provide a definition of what is a
>>> protocol, and the run this document through such definition and
>>> figure out if it fits or it doesn't?
>> 
>> 
>> A protocol is a system of rules that allow _two_ or more nodes to
>> communicate. The protocol specifies the syntax, semantics and so on
>> (1).
>> 
>> A protocol specification does not specify only the wire format.
>> 
>> 'unique-ipv6-prefix' does not specify changes in the wire-format, nor
>> its semantics. It only requires implementation change on one 'side'
>> of the protocol, namely on the routers. From that perspective I think
>> you can argue that this is not a protocol specification.
> 
> How do you get from this: "it only requires implementation change on one
> 'side' of the protocol" to this: "From that perspective I think you can
> argue that this is not a protocol specification". (First sentence
> acknowledges it *is* a protocol)

For it to be a new protocol (or protocol change, it requires _two_ or more communicating entities to be updated.
(The reference above was to the ND/SLAAC protocol.)
Proven by the fact that the host does not change, it doesn't change the ND protocol.
(With the set of reservations outlines in previous email).

Cheers,
Ole