Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt>

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 05/20/2016 03:04 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> Let's all always keep in mind that the current text of the draft
>>> says that on every network, hosts SHOULD configure an IPv6
>>> address that never changes until the end of time. I think that
>>> recommendation is irresponsible.
>> 
>> Thus, I'm continuing to run my laptop with only an RFC4941 address
>> for a few days to see whether it has any negative impact at all. So
>> far, so good.
>> 
>> Excellent! Now, if we can only make this draft stop saying that
>> that you SHOULD NOT do that...  :-)
> 
> Everything has to be read in context. My reading of this document is
> that it says what an implementation SHOULD do _iff_ a stable IID is
> to be generated. It says nothing about what to do if a stable IID is
> not required.
> 
> I find the current text quite clear on that, but clearly you don't. 
> Would it help with some sort of clearer applicability statement in
> this document? Can you propose text?

It turns out that Lorenzo wants this I-D to make an additional change:
flag stable addresses as optional. Currently, such a change is out of
the scope for this document.

I'm not saying that this dcument should not make that change or the
like... but rather noting that Lorenzo concern is not really about what
this document is meant to do (improve stable addresses *if* you're going
to configure one).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492