Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.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 22C3512946F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:18:38 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 rsFr6ffhL03Z for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (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 EC5A512946D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id n21so23321369qta.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:18:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=42sLjbny+h6IBmS083AHrf7c5d+MO88Geq9UGLrpefM=; b=jAGEzuqGAsYa93UlT3B+dBSKJTnCwQq7+zK6rRgtp7ctEljedLBEnaZGVcN32qJ/ac grGQ9X3NvYLw+q9cmBK7aGJxrajMovAijABnSCU/Rf+G1R/fZRRPndNbPB5ubzuy75HY WN1Fy6HBvZokt3AkpUtkB2+7jBsc99D8Rlb3d8s+cdyMKjTEpx4TUtU7aOKkvoMNijmT 0GRblK2P4afMXG6CzMXjBQb9QH9nVPypCC9nFDFY8JvwM9UCBg8UPv8pu/R8ZbRRfyKe 0bz0IL0Dp1e/Oa8We7cHer/pm2fWRAt0/5jpI6vriUyBpVMjufNd2Bzye1Fx7bQI9wbC RZ1Q==
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=42sLjbny+h6IBmS083AHrf7c5d+MO88Geq9UGLrpefM=; b=BjYjkhO2vaT5c0Owk2vQAMib/Ki4YrbqKihsmabF38vb4FkRzau+3/pwjwCWTDRTTc aHduPHkcGAQniZT0i0e2CBBVqrvA4xANCwGRRMXYn9BvEe/2u/cAnlTZAxQSnN+S4zT9 IKoxulq4xoSoUa6W2sDhflKjHVl3XsdAwAetKmopdc78AEAFqdjl/tqFmemGlTj90jMj TFUEtgA77Yn+Vq9ea4b7Btlzb2LPqbmTGYtJWgKJKkI1yO4gSHKad/uOg/QNdVdTRei/ qPlxVXFSC0amYxAa9utikVu5znk4QqjrYsfut+L+0YC5Rk4S8Q/9JGMSZEk/8kS8RB6I uLMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l5rniHX4yixWmOnmOsxeRG5uAGgLanPbTDsLfhTfiV//dyYpwRJkOPbA8XzUHx1YYJrSTTVWTq8oMv/w==
X-Received: by 10.200.45.137 with SMTP id p9mr4082333qta.201.1487960316049; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:18:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.91.71 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:18:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:18:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaa7uDUtksLG3zEU3RVKQsds9dM9mMiLoubqajkGwtiY4A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1136fb18141edc05494ac264
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/dcxR9ztORXZlHFOzW1qyvcB6VX0>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:18:38 -0000

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:11 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 03:11, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:
>
>
> Let me be more specific then: are you proposing that vendors write code
> to allow or disallow interface subnets which aren't /64 (or /127)? This
> is a binary choice; a vendor needs to choose one way or another.
>
>
> I don’t know how I can be more clear about this: I insist that general
> purpose host operating system developers should be expressly permitted to
> write code that declines to accept subnet prefixes of any length other than
> /64 on the grounds that these are not used in general IPv6 networking and
> the successor to RFC 4291 continues to say so.
>
>
it's totally possible that a 'general purpose host operating system
developer' may get a bug-report / feature-request from a customer in the
future (if they follow the above advice, i mean) that says: "Hey, I need to
configure my widget from foocom with a /96 prefix because 'reasons'" ...
which seems ok to me, the 2 folk can sort out their problem and move along.

that doesn't mean that the proposed text (now 180+ messages back) needs to
change though.
 -chris