IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 21 October 2020 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 AC1E53A0C43; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.146
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cFYCSMYzKR97; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB4103A0BB1; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:b9c:452e:36a3:27fd:8f9b] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:b9c:452e:36a3:27fd:8f9b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87827283B7C; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 23:40:46 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis.all@ietf.org>
References: <160322759593.31761.4896737564742954595@ietfa.amsl.com> <6431e4d6-faf9-2910-69b3-e69f8a6c2a69@si6networks.com> <BL0PR2101MB1027C36ADE6DB02621E4746EA31C0@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <e988f38c-2d19-e612-f661-70d0d630076f@si6networks.com> <BL0PR2101MB1027E248900E589477EF933EA31C0@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <e2764daa-70ad-9f98-3abc-55549b051ebe@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 20:38:15 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR2101MB1027E248900E589477EF933EA31C0@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/bq7B5rI9EcWCMYOs5zkxV5iiWkk>
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: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 23:41:06 -0000

On 21/10/20 18:59, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>  wrote:
[....]
> 
> But it also occurs to me that an "upgrade considerations" text in
> section 4 or elsewhere might also need to mention that if applications
> were built assuming that connections stay up for a week, such
> applications might break on an upgrade, unless the valid lifetime
> is explicitly configured to be a non-default value.  (This is not
> a security consideration, it's an app compat consideration.)

May/should applications really rely on a host configuration parameter 
they don't really control?

i.e., if they may assume a specific value, and would otherwise break, 
then there's not much of a real option in configuring the aforementioned 
parameters.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email