Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <[e-mail]>
To: "Job Snijders" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Erik Kline" <[e-mail]>; "6man WG" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 2:14 AM
> At Tue, 06 Jun 2017 23:30:30 +0000,
> Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > > >> But that is exactly what the draft does *not* do. Nobody would
> > > >> change a single instruction in existing code as a result of
this
> > > >> draft. (I agree with you that some O/S stacks may need fixing,
but
> > > >> they already need fixing.)
> > > >
> > > > is this draft exactly:
> > > >
> > > >    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length
up to
> > > >    128 [BCP198].  Interface Identifiers should be 64 bit long
except
> > > >    when the addresses are manually configured, or by exceptions
defined
> > > >    in standards track documents.  For example, [RFC6164]
standardises
> > > >    127 bit prefixes on inter-router point-to-point links.  The
rationale
> > > >    for using 64 bit Interface Identifiers can be found in
[RFC7421]
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > Yes. Put those words in 4291bis and I will be very happy. Oh ;-).
> >
> > I recall a small but vocal group arguing fiercely against that text
> > adjustment, so here we are.
>
> As several people including myself have already pointed out, it's very
> hard for ordinary readers to understand that's really what
> draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00 tries to propose.  It will have
> to be heavily revised to convey that message.

I agree.

I think that the message is much obscured, perhaps as a counter to the
recent history of vigorous discussion.

And it all starts with the title which ... well, I would say is rubbish
IMHO.

Tom Petch

> As for the above text, my recollection is that some people (I don't
> know if that was a small group, btw - to me both groups looked equally
> vocal and equally small/large) were against one specific point in
> text like the above one:
>
> - "should be 64" instead of "must be 64" (but in my understanding they
>   were/are okay with "except when the addresses are manually
>   configured")
>
> It's also not clear to me whether the real intent of
> draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00 includes the subtle (but
> seemingly very important for those who were "fiercely against" it)
> change from "must" to "should".  I guess if the authors of
> 6man-classless-ipv6 are actually also happy/okay with this one:
>
>     IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up
to
>     128 [BCP198].  Interface Identifiers must be 64 bit long except
>     when the addresses are manually configured, or by exceptions
defined
>     in standards track documents.  For example, [RFC6164] standardises
>     127 bit prefixes on inter-router point-to-point links.  The
rationale
>     for using 64 bit Interface Identifiers can be found in [RFC7421]
>
> then there will be no dispute or further time wasting (we'll still
> need to decide what to do with the magic leading bits of 000 in terms
> of the interface identifier length, but if we can agree at this level
> this will be a relatively minor point to address).
>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------