Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>

[Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>]

I have looked carefully at all corrections (thanks for referencing diff).
Support publication again.
Even more: both my comments were addressed.

I have a small concern that corrections have a form of “discussion” that is not appropriate for RFC.
I hope IETF editors will correct this. RFC should not “make excuses” before demanding something. It undermines any SHOULD or MAY.
Extreme politeness may be good for WGLC but not for RFC. SHOULD should be SHOULD without any excuses.
Ed/
From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 18:29
To: IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
Subject: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>

Given the number of changes since the first w.g. last call, the chairs, in consultation with the authors, are staring a second 6MAN working group last call for this document.

This email starts a second two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing "Preference for IPv6 ULAs over IPv4 addresses in RFC6724" document

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update/

 as a Standards Track document.

A summary of changes since the -06 version is below.   A good diff to review is:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&difftype=--html

[New draft on left due to line length problem with old draft]

Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This last call will end on 24 April 2024 23:59 UTC.

Also, one issue the authors would like feedback on is if the requirement is a SHOULD or MUST for inserting known-local ULA prefixes into their policy table with a precedence above both GUAs and IPv4, while leaving all other general ULAs at a lower precedence.  It is a SHOULD in the -08 draft, but there has been support for a MUST in the discussion.

Bob, Jen, Ole
6MAN chairs


Begin forwarded message:

From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=[e-mail]<mailto:Tim.Chown=[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08.txt
Date: April 9, 2024 at 7:47:57 AM PDT
To: IPv6 List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Hi,

Actually it works better I notice with 08 on the left and 06 on the right, as -06 has the broken formatting, so please check the diff from -06 to the current -08 using:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&difftype=--html

The changes are largely around making the MAY insert local entries into a SHOULD insert known-locals, with a little more text on how we’d determine those.

Tim


On 9 Apr 2024, at 15:13, Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

We have published -08 of the rfc6724 update, this fixes some
formatting and other typographical oversights
The following sections address comments from the lis (difft from -06
to -08 is the most useful comparison):
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&difftype=--html


Brief overview of the changes from -06:

Section 2:
Add terminology section and define known-local

Section 3:
Add section on elevating
upgrades the requirement in RFC 6724 for nodes to insert a higher
precedence entry in the policy table for observed ULA prefixes that
are known to be local, referred to in this document as "known-local"
ULAs, from a MAYto a SHOULD.

Section 4:
Changes the 6to4 prefix deprecation to match Teredo, adds further
clarity and reference to RFC6724 section 10.7

Section 5:
Add text to upgrade the requirement to automatically insert
known-local ULAs into a node's policy table from a MAY to a SHOULD.

Section 5.3
Further define insertion and removal parameters and requirements for
known-local ULA prefixes into table and associated values and label

Section 7.2:
Further clarify GUA-GUA preferred over ULA-ULA details

Section 7.3:
Further clarify ULA-ULA preferred over IPv4-IPv4 details

Section 8:
Housekeeping and formatting changes

Section 9.2:
Describe the new known-local interaction and how it addresses issues
with ULAs in global DNS



Further copy edit and housekeeping.

Thanks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------