Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The self-selection addressing model does not suit the deployment
> requirements for many types of ipv6 networks, including enterprise,
> provider hosting, terrestrial access networks (e.g. docsis / gpon /
> ipoe) and others.  If the recommendation for dhcpv6 is dropped, then
> there is no recommended ietf model for operator-assigned addressing, and
> this would leave a glaring hole in the ipv6 host specification.
>

That's a fair opinion to hold, but the fact of the matter is that a SHOULD
for DHCPv6 conflicts with RFC 7934 and RFC 7844.

We shouldn't publish a host requirements document that contradicts the host
address assignment BCP and that cites RFC7844 while contradicting that
document's recommendation to use stateless in preference to stateful.