RE: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> Fri, 13 May 2011 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
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 4E553E085C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 13:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.045
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.045 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PaIQMGBJ2ZRc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 13:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tndh.net (unknown [50.46.43.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB76AE085B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2011 13:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuthUser: alh-ietf@tndh.net
Received: from ahainW7 ([192.168.112.18]:17550) by tndh.net with [XMail 1.27 ESMTP Server] id <S18E4903> for <ipv6@ietf.org> from <alh-ietf@tndh.net>; Fri, 13 May 2011 13:50:43 -0700
From: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: 'Ralph Droms' <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, 'Thomas Narten' <narten@us.ibm.com>
References: <201105131337.p4DDbdao009901@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4462F666-D0FD-45C1-AE71-0CD70580C110@gmail.com> <201105131602.p4DG2L3L010708@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <A4D9C64B-C35A-450D-A43D-D19EC61E6357@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A4D9C64B-C35A-450D-A43D-D19EC61E6357@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:50:40 -0700
Message-ID: <043301cc11af$6d4996b0$47dcc410$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcwRigq5rfZauEgiTsCw3xaPt1KKsQAJVjLA
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'Bob Hinden' <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 13 May 2011 20:50:47 -0000

I agree with Ralph's text.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Ralph Droms
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 9:23 AM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Bob Hinden; Ralph Droms
> Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
> 
> 
> On May 13, 2011, at 12:02 PM 5/13/11, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> > Bob,
> >
> > Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> While I support changing the requirement to a SHOULD, I would prefer
> >> the text to be something like:
> >
> >>     	<t> DHCPv6 <xref target='RFC3315' /> can be used to obtain
> and
> >> 	configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the
> >> 	configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements,
> >> 	DHCPv6 or both.   There will be a wide range of IPv6 deployment
> models
> >>        and differences in address assignment requirements.
> Consequently all hosts
> >> 	SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCP.</t>
> >
> >> It's not just about what some operators may or may not do.  For
> >> example enterprises, governments, etc. will also have specific
> >> requirements.
> >
> > I like this text better than what I proposed as well.
> 
> Here's my contribution, trying to make an explicit link between the
> last two sentences:
> 
>         <t> DHCPv6 <xref target='RFC3315' /> can be used to obtain and
> 	configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the
> 	configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements,
> 	DHCPv6 or both.  There will be a wide range of IPv6 deployment
> 	models and differences in address assignment requirements,
> 	some of which may require DHCPv6 for address assignment.
> 	Consequently all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration
> 	via DHCPv6.</t>
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Thomas
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------