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

Mark,
Here is a new text to address your first comments:

 Note:  An RDNSS address or a DNSSL domain name MUST be used only as
      long as both the RA router Lifetime (a positive lifetime value
      advertised by Router Lifetime field in a Router Advertisement
      message [RFC4861]) and the corresponding option
      Lifetime have not expired.  The reason is that in the current
      network to which an IPv6 host is connected, the RDNSS may not be
      currently reachable, that the DNSSL domain name is not valid any
      more, or that these options do not provide service to the host's
      current address (e.g., due to network ingress filtering
      [RFC2827][RFC5358]).
      However, Router Lifetime of 0 in a Router Advertisement message
      does not invalidate the RDNSS address or DNSSL domain name
      because the Router Lifetime applies only to the router’s
      usefulness as a default router and it does not apply to
      information contained in other message fields or options, such as
      RDNSS and DNSSL options [RFC4861].

Could you review this?

Thanks.

Paul

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ole,
>
> On 22 July 2015 at 17:36, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> >> My comments below in part on this draft and Fernando's earlier one seem
> to have been ignored again.
> >
> > it wasn’t our intention to ignore your comments. I don’t see them as
> blocking for adoption, and we wanted that done first.
>
> Ok. It is only that I've posted them a couple of times over the last
> few months (once in feedback to Fernando's ID, once to this one) and
> nothing in the draft seemed to have changed.
>
> >
> >> The advice to consider RDNSS and DNSSL option values to be invalid if
> RA lifetime has expired is inconsistent with RFC4861's advice on the use of
> Router Lifetimes. A RA Lifetime of zero is valid, and should not cause
> options within the RA to be considered invalid - that is why they have
> their on lifetime values. Again quoting from RFC4861,
> >>
> >> "The Router Lifetime applies only to
> >>                     the router's usefulness as a default router; it
> >>                     does not apply to information contained in other
> >>                     message fields or options. "
> >>
> >> For example, RDNSS addresses could be link-local addresses, so the
> expiry of the default router information (specifically and only indicated
> by the Router Lifetime) would not impact the ability to use the on-link DNS
> resolvers. NUD and/or the DNS resolver's failure detection methods would
> determine if link-local addressed resolvers are still valid to send
> requests to.
> >
> > let me try to answer the point on lifetime first.
> > I’m a little confused why you say the RDNSS lifetime is tied to the
> Router Lifetime, that certainly wasn’t the intention.
> >
> > the RDNSS Lifetime text is:
> >                    The value of Lifetime SHOULD by
> >                    default be at least 3 * MaxRtrAdvInterval where
> >                    MaxRtrAdvInterval is the Maximum RA Interval defined
> >                    in [RFC4861].  A value of all one bits (0xffffffff)
> >                    represents infinity.  A value of zero means that the
> >                    RDNSS address MUST no longer be used.
> >
> > the text states that the should be larger than lifetime > 3 RA
> advertisement interval.
> > that’s to ensure that a network that runs with very short lifetimes
> would survive even if a few RAs are lost.
> > that’s independent of those RAs having Router Lifetime of 0.
> >
>
> Here's the text that says Router Lifetime is a constraint on the
> use/validity of the RDNSS and DNSSL option values:
>
>
> "Note:  An RDNSS address or a DNSSL domain name MUST be used only as
>       long as both the RA router Lifetime (advertised by a Router
>       Advertisement message [RFC4861]) and the corresponding option
>       Lifetime have not expired."
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
> > cheers,
> > Ole
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php