Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
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 376BC1294F3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:55:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 8iMHT17MuDCe for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:55:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AF9F1294EA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:55:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id x35so25349584qtc.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:55:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=isHLcGB71diaVTPna8eT6pJoHUbj16kbqlVnwIr2KvI=; b=E37ef3DBAwakkQZpZ9fTk9c20GS1d5wM9lrWWISc+0BDPQyII1/8kij4qqzUwnGgsr NW0wEm46RLzimL36ZFc1i9Y4HZ7fRQJz02JCRnt8zj2eQSzCXT1ETCb8vD4xjIbVjKVP w4rBhfDOc+ENYh6NCnIyh49V9ht7Z4gimx2jZiOzTOXa5Z1lf8SFSDQLRoz4OBdUCBiW Ziah+7U/axNVxey9ou79KEd9Rpr1Aqiq11DoU6/s2q+31+jJo8YEnfRnnvXm9YtkVFn7 3tYvYN16myRW6wzkz/ejR1HRLYWvVec+WFWYOprwKxaRGupfXxqdfYL2AjdtDtss4Emb 42Fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=isHLcGB71diaVTPna8eT6pJoHUbj16kbqlVnwIr2KvI=; b=jMJjhdKmtGobjlhnJZiRJDvPt9pjPR899F2AWOO3arGEfU3bum2TokV1/rcEaEBGaj QTkgFxeVF2V6B0a/1PZKXU6WxXxuIyD4v83qSzNIfO9lWctD46qVgedKZuH4SWxkSrPf nUsUNNxAXMibee7w5YWfWUo+Uiy8H6xRseJMnU1BjGjh4Igy0H17CuqWMnzgF1JrMj4x t77XU+LIDGcU7EttH7h+VOX0iIIXFKq+zCIVoISPpB4chhM5pYqAtQla613q1zXHnkSC 36Cvcm0vriOSbT6YEL6e4tKLMazhlQGu7mu209KYwI4lObl13ZjJJmkODqmLWPFIVCJk DjcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kuDhaUf184IlXLJRRrLoHbPbVwMImwZVCp5gStV6ILweXzLxejcQkxuleD87u7uLaEITEiNFpK3+H6dw==
X-Received: by 10.200.45.137 with SMTP id p9mr4533219qta.201.1487966119659; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:55:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.91.71 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:55:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0n6oFm538XdJOcuO1yg92BCDD3mBu5YfBVm_+g-gtcKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAN-Dau0s04c=RV0Y8AGaxBPFui41TWPTB+5o0K2Lj-iah0An1w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYirty22iGiEjEaYq3_KA1FZhxBTOBWuFOXQ9C-WPd5xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0n6oFm538XdJOcuO1yg92BCDD3mBu5YfBVm_+g-gtcKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:55:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaYO=uYgVfSZ0SoSe0SujJ1xgwEKE8WLzo_keJHywgXTtg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1136fb1800120205494c1c00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_dFARZQWj43Au-dPMwOSC5uWM0c>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 24 Feb 2017 19:55:22 -0000

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:51 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>; wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Christopher Morrow <
> christopher.morrow@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> sorry, a clarification request below.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:42 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>; wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:11 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 03:11, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me be more specific then: are you proposing that vendors write code
>>>> to allow or disallow interface subnets which aren't /64 (or /127)? This
>>>> is a binary choice; a vendor needs to choose one way or another.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know how I can be more clear about this: I insist that general
>>>> purpose host operating system developers should be expressly permitted to
>>>> write code that declines to accept subnet prefixes of any length other than
>>>> /64 on the grounds that these are not used in general IPv6 networking and
>>>> the successor to RFC 4291 continues to say so.
>>>>
>>>> I know there are operating systems with billions of units in the field
>>>> today that do exactly this because RFC 4291 and its predecessors have for
>>>> years given them clear license to do so, and I don’t want to see the
>>>> publication of I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis as RFC come to remove this license
>>>> as a side effect of promoting IPv6 to full Standard category.
>>>>
>>>> You want to remove that license? I suppose we can continue discussing
>>>> that, but I think you should try to do it in a separate draft once IPv6 is
>>>> officially promoted.
>>>>
>>>> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would not want to make code that does /64 only out of compliance with
>>> the spec, especially for SLAAC.  I would like to discourage that stance,
>>> maybe for DHCP, but for sure for manual configuration if that mode is
>>> provided.  But, I don't see /64 only as a invalid stance for an host OS to
>>> take.  But neither do I want the spec to disallow non-/64 for DHCP, manual
>>> configuration, or potential new modes of configuration if we ever get
>>> there.  I think SLAAC should to remain /64 only. I think DHCP and manual
>>> configuration should be encourage to support non-/64 options, but even they
>>> should allow /64 only.
>>>
>>>
>> please restate your last sentence... I think you missed a word or three?
>>
>
> It's still ok for a host OSes to do /64 only with DHCP and manual config,
> not preferred.  I'd prefer host OSes support non-/64 as well for DHCP and
> manual config, but not mandatory.  Only /64 should be REQUIRED of anyone,
> host, router, or what ever.  Non-/64 should be OPTIONAL for everyone.
>
> Is that clearer?
>
>
clearer, but not what I was expecting...

OPTIONAL means 'will not happen without customer loud voices' (generally).
I'm worried that OPTIONAL is going to cause problems :(


> thanks
>>>
>>> --
>>> ===============================================
>>> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
>>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>>> Office of Information Technology
>>> University of Minnesota
>>> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
>>> ===============================================
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
> ===============================================
>