IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-maxra-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 27 October 2017 04:43 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 9D83C137C4A; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gq4_E-X876Y7; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8F3139438; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.4.49] (207-47-24-11.static-ip.telepacific.net [207.47.24.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B520E2D50FE; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 04:43:42 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="cp932"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-maxra-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15A372)
In-Reply-To: <b16972d4-5456-76f5-0555-d94d9818d21c@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:43:42 -0700
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-maxra@ietf.org, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <494DB70A-D752-45A9-9D9F-B0062F2E2764@employees.org>
References: <150888618658.4890.17540557977964477269.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F068A57-9F88-4951-A584-D103193744C4@gmail.com> <b16972d4-5456-76f5-0555-d94d9818d21c@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Wfna0kuMUL9axNNrKLKjJklc8Dg>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 04:43:45 -0000

Adam,

It might be worth noting that if it is inclusive or exclusive has absolutely zero consequence for the protocol.

Ole

> On 26 Oct 2017, at 17:30, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/26/17 17:21, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> I am not aware of interoperability problems caused by the RC4681 “between” language. Can you point to a problem?
> 
> Rather than running the risk of getting caught up on the minutiae of any scenario I might describe, I'm going to narrow my DISCUSS to a much simpler assertion:
> 
> Lacking a formal definition of "between," the following normative statement is ambiguous: "AdvDefaultLifetime MUST either be zero (the router is not to be used as a default router) or be a value between MaxRtrAdvInterval and 65535."
> 
> Normative statements cannot be ambiguous.
> 
> Please clarify whether this is an inclusive "between" or an exclusive "between."
> 
> /a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email