Re: Moving RFC4291-bis forward

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Lee,

> On Nov 29, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Lee Howard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/28/18 6:20 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Suresh,
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Fred,
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 12:40 PM Templin (US), Fred L
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>  wrote:
>>> Great, but what does "Parked" mean? In particular, are there any plans to
>>> un-park it at some point?
>>> 
>>> Given that the IETF last call showed a deep split in the community with irreconcilable differences, repeating the process over is not going to end with a different result. Do you think something has changed since then (e.g. Do you think there is some new variation of text that can gain consensus)?
>>> 
>> That my take too.   As you noted, the issue came up in IETF Last call, we did get consensus in the w.g.  Discussing it here isn’t very likely to get a different outcome.
> I'm rereading the IETF LC thread from February 2017 (21 months ago), and I'm not convinced the differences are irreconcilable, and if the are reconcilable, then the WG can discuss text changes       to respond to the objections.
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=rfc4291bis&f_list=ietf
> 
> Everyone agrees:
> 
> 	• /64 is generally required for SLAAC
> 	• /64 applies, at most, to 2000::/3
> 	• There are many ways to number interfaces/create IIDs, many of which recognize no /64 boundary
> Some folks described the /64 boundary as operational guidance. I'd settle for Brian's idea of calling out an operational/implementation guidance doc describing IID considerations. There was discussion of what such a document might say.
> I think the last couple of days of discussion in that thread were productive consideration of proposed alternative text. It would take me a few hours to go through the thread to pull out all of the proposed text and the arguments for and against, but I think it's possible.

Suggest you look at the text in the last version published (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt) and propose changes.   If you can get agreement here, then you could talk to the people who raised issues in the IETF last call and see if they are OK with the new text.

Bob


> 
> Lee
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Suresh
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> 
>>> Administrative Requests:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> 
>> [e-mail]
>> 
>> Administrative Requests:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------