Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Wed, 08 March 2017 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 2BE521294D4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:04:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 H-USd24EMuWy for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A99471295BB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3C4525 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:04:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y_aIGPuF5eSl for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:04:56 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ua0-f198.google.com (mail-ua0-f198.google.com [209.85.217.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6A78E6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:04:56 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-ua0-f198.google.com with SMTP id w33so70625044uaw.4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:04:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fKaGS4mX2VYOYOx4WoEOCJT3pyNqT59rYeLmZjr17wc=; b=BieRU1qLehsB7splsnGBe529wLKo/oSl3KJpMPBszv6GwFDk+GkGfflm4wFM+c1GFY LqSHIW4uCQ9D+MJJ1UI7xQVwDxid98HRUbVA7hi0i66WYOV8hV97lQGdOhf8gtF4WyIS CGNIDaFOgu6lfr+EkOXFyr5v4xHiSNHzsbmmWln5snfWWSqTJ/49VfDdpGEmDB+9Nj+Y HUDCj53r8bp4uApzxJ/dP+ZgOB5JwycHtdLzui9G6Hj/O4a3gYHmZrFkQC8FbqgQVnLD T0saemFuSmTl13MXE3U1JIAs0bzdT3YCAJVJEfxvAICv8zQUOvzEcSM2EcJC1c8GJNqJ MR/Q==
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=fKaGS4mX2VYOYOx4WoEOCJT3pyNqT59rYeLmZjr17wc=; b=umVM6pv6GVfTkRLVVwWMHJ1NmkTROHVR77qhfrGIkgTYRBQp6yP12WavjYaxTBl8pn hrEIqAXagDqNkQ1fql2te6xsBbn/JX8+iG/IQr6U0iFimJNmtcei5y4/m6oyx/mCjPoX hydJYZpq83BAbs2aOHr8+kLQYRdxUdL7Z5Z0bOpyTTyEh3+by6aP2OFpit3eJz3Emb/6 an6oRs4XOxZsoB8/SAV83HrBZBBywEUclgg/iI8v0QisV+DIATulIMD/3E1uOhWN7Mdq og+JTwsv2zVqD0x+y8mk1mQsundebkBUH5uEcz5sQURVVUZRnuJzDqnoZ+7i2UO3CxYU GYOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mbtJph7wam7j0O90LdW75dE5AL5mUrwHV+2k+4rakw5vUWYv3SOEzkH0PLsobtPWmF0FRv9pU3++9mStsnQCGKvmZUfyJFbAIweOxZUbEB4c5G1l1zee7/TSjpNEIqgG6Dh77PC1OcLsY=
X-Received: by 10.176.80.66 with SMTP id z2mr5583436uaz.151.1489007096159; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:04:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.176.80.66 with SMTP id z2mr5583416uaz.151.1489007095883; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:04:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.134.129 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:04:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9B6D49C1-D793-465B-A395-28147BD22FAC@google.com>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com> <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com> <m1ck5mu-0000GaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com> <CAOSSMjW_fPz3RdPyK=e-EyvyW4GawFAr3zcGLkBzDcR8Ws2MUw@mail.gmail.com> <90292C5E-013D-4B7C-B496-8A88C7285CD7@google.com> <CAOSSMjXf1ah6nrAorf+mpnOxXBpHg6difgCo4mQ6rPVZoU8CSw@mail.gmail.com> <7FAD8D2B-B50E-44C5-AAA3-0C91621D9D54@google.com> <CAOSSMjX4Rq969cTuAU+sqWmW7Rh2-nxjd1vpSkeAevVZTed1HA@mail.gmail.com> <ED8E5513-A522-4D37-A0A2-0960CF3E5394@google.com> <36251EE1-309C-44B5-BEAE-591889492547@employees.org> <9B6D49C1-D793-465B-A395-28147BD22FAC@google.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:04:54 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau3CvTRSTXdPwnXYg+eMJjq-uPb-jTSdmfZATiy1o4=WZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c19233004e28c054a3e7b87
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pF8EcuZ42qW-nVKdakAAt73z6WI>
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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 21:04:59 -0000

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:20 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 13:41, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>
> On 7 Mar 2017, at 22:22, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:
>
>
> In summary, there is a deficit of RFC 2119 keyword language here, and we
> have to make the case that the standards texts make a sufficiently strong
> implicit case rather than an explicit normative requirement.
>
> As explained above, it sure looks to me like a very fair reading of the
> implicit requirements language is that LwIP is within the limits of RFC
> 4291, RFC 4861 and RFC 4862 when it choose the option of ignoring PIO
> elements with invalid prefix length for IID on the underlying link type.
>
> Yes, the USGv6 and IPv6 Ready Logo tests are well within their rights to
> apply additional requirements beyond the IETF standards, but it seems like
> a strict interpretation of the standards allow for LwIP to claim
> conformance.
>
> How can we counter this argument?
>
>
> We're not writing law, we're specifying what it takes to have
> implementations of a specification interoperate.
>
>
> I agree, and I contend there's something missing here in what we’ve said
> it takes to interoperate.
>
> That implementation would fail to interoperate.
>
>
> As I wrote to the other participants in this exchange off list, I remain
> convinced that the interoperability issue here is due to system
> administrators ignoring the recommendation in RFC 4862 to always use a
> valid Prefix Length for the link type in PIO elements without also ensuring
> that all hosts on the link implement behavior that RFC 4861 implies is
> OPTIONAL for performing on-link determination.
>
> Here I will add that I’m not going to push for changes to LwIP either
> locally or upstream until I’m persuaded this interpretation of the existing
> text is wrong.
>

So one question, where in your mind do the standards say what is a valid
prefix for PIO on link? Or the conversely, where does it define invalid
prefixes for such?

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================