Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-03.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 09 October 2020 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 85A943A156B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 mtj_8bHnd9PP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5B033A152A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1139D389AD; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 17:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Q_doM7b3IHPa; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 17:29:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75CC389AB; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 17:29:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05868AA; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 17:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, otroan@employees.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-03.txt
In-Reply-To: <2f169452-0450-5dc3-b5de-0941e135fff9@foobar.org>
References: <160201571921.22183.2288394613501535041@ietfa.amsl.com> <FAA42031-FAF9-4F1E-A702-3B4F27375F4F@employees.org> <2f169452-0450-5dc3-b5de-0941e135fff9@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 17:24:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4211.1602278666@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/e2gVr9prkyjsA3NylRGsC3TTiI0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 09 Oct 2020 21:24:32 -0000

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
    > we may benefit from having a more open discussion about the main problem
    > statement, namely the intent to smooth over difficult political issues by
    > introducing a layer of technical indirection.

I agree with you.

In particular, if BFP vendor X, Y and Z implements this universal-RA option
in it's RA configuration, then it makes it *significantly* easier to do experiments as
to whether some new thing or not is useful or not.

It gets us back into running-code and then rough consensus space.

DHCP already has vendor extensions which provide for something equivalent,
but with less imposed structure.

    > From a political point of view, the extra difficulty in implementing new
    > options and the high likelihood that any new option would not see widescale
    > rollout due to the technical high risk status of the universal RA option,
    > could be viewed as making any new option less politically unpalatable and
    > therefore more likely to be adopted.  This is, on the face of it, both the
    > draft's strength and its weakness.  The gain is more consensus and
    > potentially more progress if it shows promise; the loss is more effort and a
    > fossil legacy if it fails.

Agreed.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [