Re: Conclusion of Adoption Call for <draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option>

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline wrote on 08/11/2021 03:22:
> If this is going to move forward I think there needs to be some guidance 
> text for defining new options; specifically, a discussion about the 
> semantics for protocol designers, e.g., information that must be 
> delivered to a single node vs information safe to deliver to all nodes 
> (multicast vs unicast) sort of issues.  Right now we only have options 
> that are safe to consume by all nodes.  While it seems reasonable to me 
> to continue in that vein, I think it's useful to have text reminding the 
> designer of any new option about these considerations.

the original benefit put forward by this draft was that it was 
universal, i.e. applicable to anything which had an RA component, 
including SLAAC and DHCPv6.  If the DHCPv6 component is removed, then 
this devalues the proposal.

In general, there don't seem to be blocking issues relating to creating 
new RA options relating to SLAAC.  The difficulties associated with new 
automatic addressing proposals relate almost entirely to dhcpv6, 
specifically to the protocol enhancements which would ultimately allow 
it to operate without RAs.

 From this perspective, it wasn't clear that the draft was solving the 
right problem to start with, and if dhcpv6 is removed, its use-case is 
diminished even further.  I'm not sure there's a good reason to continue 
work on the draft.

Nick