IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> Mon, 13 May 2019 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>
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 456D9120071 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 05:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jisc.ac.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kzEZHbeJgD_q for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 05:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com [146.101.78.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12DE612006F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2019 05:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jisc.ac.uk; s=mimecast20170213; t=1557751827; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:openpgp:autocrypt; bh=rjkdVPU62dhCgtnO4QByoO3WUUN9rZD5bwccPfNlWGs=; b=OJl8LwesqY3a5z0RmxKVx0C89iZQpl+Lrys3nSbjeMaSXkvhw0VNVieMtcLsLukX6P0dMR 3eKlGAGU6+435CDc9tj1xCLwp+sjZxQMXcOAhWk87i43bPVuLvUnpdkQs80AEt2njvxFhW Qc9eEVRpVvQNQOQs4NXM/U7CxSmbiOk=
Received: from EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3eur04lp2055.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.12.55]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-165-JlboWqrkOMOEkaS3iZJegQ-2; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:50:25 +0100
Received: from AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.133.54.140) by AM0PR07MB5170.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.17.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1900.14; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:50:21 +0000
Received: from AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c810:2e6c:e2e1:365d]) by AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c810:2e6c:e2e1:365d%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1900.010; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:50:21 +0000
From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
CC: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
Thread-Topic: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
Thread-Index: AQHVBka0Fhjsw9W7PUiwqBiU8LyaSKZktq4AgAAVBQCAAFTrAIAAXyAAgAOIjYA=
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 12:50:21 +0000
Message-ID: <DBBCA933-4146-43AD-8816-1F4FD36E4451@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905091054560.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAJE_bqeDE9bwkMm63p_Dz+ha7_tLa38wA27YRK2n59D1g-qLrA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905102204270.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se> <98d88cbb-fa92-42b0-f707-37b4eedf4782@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905110839120.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905110839120.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
x-originating-ip: [2001:a88:d510:1101:b455:6bd1:456:67e]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 07ec5404-6370-496a-fac7-08d6d7a18f8a
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR07MB5170;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR07MB5170:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR07MB5170FF71C862BD464CE579B4D60F0@AM0PR07MB5170.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0036736630
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(346002)(39850400004)(136003)(366004)(376002)(199004)(189003)(99286004)(76176011)(53546011)(6116002)(256004)(2906002)(6506007)(68736007)(8676002)(102836004)(74482002)(72206003)(6916009)(73956011)(91956017)(76116006)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66946007)(66476007)(14454004)(25786009)(86362001)(36756003)(186003)(6512007)(57306001)(786003)(316002)(83716004)(486006)(71200400001)(71190400001)(229853002)(53936002)(4326008)(33656002)(8936002)(46003)(50226002)(5660300002)(81166006)(54906003)(478600001)(81156014)(82746002)(6436002)(7736002)(11346002)(6246003)(446003)(6486002)(476003)(2616005)(305945005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR07MB5170; H:AM0PR07MB4177.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: W79LZv1sfb5yg7epWu4QL8kHlNJZjmDhwUAAgcPARzwo3RSVDIcowUflgoTCrsgbRpeohejSXaqdMkyWdjZlP1QTlpgAgVPyFaDQfBG0Z1yIDHHvkkiRw+PwZ4BX/c/QrEMUYrK7+f2mQFRnTa9fBLAijpDuS+Pf6C3+HOk/Xga+urtTbp8fJGQ55e1/xR1pUjje2isaYVsvVWAex+rT76ToQapoIc/bx/k6b8pkyUFxbhW4ys1CcUCeZKr0HXHLOVn1omttMwDkBP4bDVQWCCK6foAk7sbWn9TRK1DV/T3LzddXARla7PHiI/londioegeJDDarDDQo5LPrOj49KJHjGaxtOnysVRFPkujzJStTppQ+gRnH0v/Gg1IttQBhVVpIDiKiyhJct7QdteLP4pDYMFNyjcgn+raXQImIyGs=
Content-ID: <47E28037517C864DABEA0BFE9211EAC8@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jisc.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 07ec5404-6370-496a-fac7-08d6d7a18f8a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 May 2019 12:50:21.6680 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR07MB5170
X-MC-Unique: JlboWqrkOMOEkaS3iZJegQ-2
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="WINDOWS-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UKLyVnKLN1wv8TKa_gGQ8tKkyn0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 13 May 2019 12:50:32 -0000

> On 11 May 2019, at 07:52, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 May 2019, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> It's always been my opinion that the flag is input to a heuristic; but from time to time we've had pushback asking for it to be more definitive.
> 
> It's been my take that regardless what we write in the document, it's going to be treated as a signal and the host will do whatever the device manufacturer thinks is best. The "SHOULD NOT" in term of "IPv4 operations" leave enough room for interpretation for that.
> 
> However, others have interpreted the document differently, so it's obvious that the text needs changing. I think we have rough consensus on the flag being a signal (much like the M/O flag) that the host can act on if it so desires. So if the text can be changed to actually say so, it seems to me this is acceptable to a rough majority and we could then progress the document.
> 
> I am not super happy about leaving the ambiguity out there (see the earlier discussion on different OSes doing different things when the M/O flag changes) but I think it's the prudent way because we can't predict all the use-cases out there, and the different types of devices. The implementors know this best, and the document could point out in the considerations section some things that have been brought up in the discussions so far.

That sums up my view very well.

I also agree with Brian when he said "In this thread we have the makings of a useful set of heuristics, with or without the ipv6only flag. But that would presumably be v6ops or opsawg territory."   That's something to take forward in those groups.

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email