IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Tue, 11 August 2015 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80BD81A88BE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 iEbt7N8psDSB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) (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 3ED711A88B8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so70018652igf.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=cl1tEUCGY+a91925UL9jcqnLKnenepCt3zsQBUaFVT4=; b=Izm4PCpbQI4oJ5I42CDwSNXjwqDPFvN5QUKQJHQqfSpQxvUmLgnTftI7nFFd8a0F9X +Sb7s/YRqFcedvua4a7Y4Ml+29wt96DORdIxWOii1sarEzapiabVDg3LSFMhhQTGjXe4 RbrFO9o5GQ4NLUxNW3EczwyulKyoRN/T7uzjNW4in+nvHvBw5Eg+bMuM+LZx/dfV06C2 Zv+SEwztp+O1PbyD+YPqrdQV5Ye+oLIwdeY56zb7Ky57/58F4v+8j+3xgR7WaLXp1ett cvp0IS1bNkIOGuImZZ4jMMYMhvMTInsIu8A6JljAM8/uqnYlYtLTHwEkIEL/cxajeb8n tFXQ==
X-Received: by 10.50.88.65 with SMTP id be1mr17876392igb.95.1439294570549; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.169.143 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 05:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0aQ8yQR+2GyuVXJS0DrJasmqFz6RLQcodrCW982pNVGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20CE2629-7D40-4B5B-833E-4A401308027F@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0aQ8yQR+2GyuVXJS0DrJasmqFz6RLQcodrCW982pNVGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:02:20 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2wMNuPe5mmjDx5xG+3GmN-k47gsabiMQX56fiT+Kk-QcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cMCU-NoioNqLSH-l4PVfHbX11Gg>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:02:52 -0000

On 11 August 2015 at 21:55, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>>
>> This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on adopting:
>>
>>     Title           : IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
>> Configuration
>>     Authors     : J. Jeong, S. Park, L. Beloeil, S. Madanapalli
>>     Filename   : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis
>>     Pages       : 18
>>     Date          : 2015-05-09
>>
>>     http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis/
>
>
> Before we publish this document, I would like it to answer one more
> question: are link-local addresses valid in an RDNSS option? There is
> nothing saying that they are not valid, but on the other hand, the text
> about the "resolver repository" says nothing about scope IDs.
>

I think link-local addresses should be valid for RDNSS options.
They're valid for applications to use (as per RFC4007), and mean that
an on-link resolver service would not be impacted by GUA or ULA
renumbering events.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email