Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 02:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 14F4E12785F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:14:41 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 3XDxUr8pY76c for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:14:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22a.google.com (mail-it0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (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 E3EA3126DFF for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id u132so7623396ita.0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:14:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kV+IndwTvKWkoKeoPfXo6i+2NF71fr9Mrz4+l/qBWH8=; b=nekUES3Xm8VsIEpaOQENihXL6vL7UDcKHsnavA7onTVrUaBjbIzpB5n7aInWan+6ih U8HKxBRPT4yhveMDLiuwZ3QJhB+WOoLDeUxqo6b/A759rkLBS9IUVXTSZTb2KKuzbwVn H1yxvxuJgJPEG0MqMen0enRWfFCdHPGbVTTXiSQPayLchk3IBx9419nZ66FrIg6co7Mq EQabxsoKluC/OK7kL5loZWi7s8Z548plY5h2+n9kwgqHwP4PCONtmENuJu4uNt5f1p8P ZP2+n3UKSyYEwWG/CdEwJIuuuZ0cLhCBI0gugoDOe3PKAAvw6NSrjPxSDvkAUjOlsTI+ 7fZQ==
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=kV+IndwTvKWkoKeoPfXo6i+2NF71fr9Mrz4+l/qBWH8=; b=TBeJBQ3bvbKCnaJBYkvZFwVQ2G8VDx9GLi0HEUtqyuvMh0KKDdQyuEN0DnoP9w9Qpd /E6CgxvFtE8oZXZke7qqzO/3txWb0tc/2utTCHAE5XV8ao/3n/ieRWnBb0MGqKfgUEh2 bYTUqIV3s4UWkWgj0SdftXG7QHQFVykveQzZAPGr+IaqvhxvwvQbw24sTM6id51XJu6E pWAFRuKvBZ+xqR4lrDDOL06NRuaughHwkgjEZ8p6Mb5mPWQ7udP4jlV4vNMb3eK13cO9 bAgKW2m+BoNKQ46b28arFC3UQw5jgstjnXjmYjbPgWUWnz4UMfRyuYTcg5PX2wOMbq4F 0Ndg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6gPUvm6rT0kzdSp1jC7XAtqxRsZ1J0POHCPPVsoDdMP2NOweEs YgDpqUSyaxYBLI2Dzm76mBZ4flTJT99DtCrn5yJByw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYzO+s+YJDOPpQsEuSBH6lVnIBDAR6WvcTB3mAP8hR/tCPfnwerPpcljuspKdcE/hoyY9R/AjlbjDx1ODzWZ50=
X-Received: by 10.36.252.68 with SMTP id b65mr9016097ith.151.1510539274865; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:14:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.82.19 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:14:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d154133-a1de-7774-1589-c7069bf279ee@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:14:13 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0b2858e64998055dd3d4af"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cGJJ8bNkddMDEcV0GUcfATjozzk>
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:14:41 -0000

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>; wrote:

> FWIW, I would agree with that if this were an issue of WG focus creep.
> AFAICT, the issue appears to go much deeper, which means it's an Area
> boundary issue if it is indeed a protocol extension.
>
> IMO, OPS stays in the lane of suggesting sets of *existing* protocol
> parameters and features, or indicates where MAYs and SHOULDs can be
> relaxed (or not) - all of this remains compliant with the protocol.
> Changes to the protocol should not be considered operational decisions,
> again IMO.
>

Excuse me, but I really cannot fathom why we are saying that this draft
defines a new protocol when it is an explicit goal for all existing
implementations to continue to work. How can this be a new protocol when
all implementations implement this already?