Re: Upleveling discussion (was Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host))

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Tue, 14 November 2017 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 82BF61286D6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_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=google.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 GiR9gNO4jFA1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (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 E292212704A for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x232.google.com with SMTP id d66so25412474ioe.5 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=qanqcKINRZWECWxmdTRTyB3XNJWHa832En8ZtWo76K0=; b=kWfuXq6t9EK9XNQxTMvKznjcDSbzw+2BQxFCA4NwXEnDJN5pNWi8j69wcikYvPB/u8 DOheE78ofao5xbfq54veFMr5M4JlnnoAMIWLLEZ4Jdt+VQscB93TwgfJyii8Jo61agIu MYw9MlnTDb0GncEXIo6TCsOvMsadZty8PF9nVMn5MpOpqD4r56vnsvxNVI8gM9ODZKR/ XLOxogQj8FLBFy5cAvc2LJ2Y+36ai/+If6Ugvr76zMutUZ7DnLwGkzDM1S1X+j/moNEM tl8RB4RURe5k8B8e6KRBrQfR5+/4fujc7/ISSuCvZ4PjQMqYg5nbxFKCk36hPskNyYud oxWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=qanqcKINRZWECWxmdTRTyB3XNJWHa832En8ZtWo76K0=; b=oKaA8wbhwJtQsLyRt9/BzkxFH9OGhmueJ5BRJjjOYAhnfVpHIxZyl9YoZiUd4YRNwl 4QszVg8/Hh6toH0AidxPQKUrNm/aTi/5Zz6lGNqwuPGD2kGf3qdiTUxqXtW8FjxMdpOq vQV89WRTgMyXiF7C8k5g/XWPc/Qx6xyYQxKgsKr7zn362ItdwEBKkHFQjnvNh+X7wYTg j7f+JJuh3I2LdPGiALgsqGmULqNWjvsfsdZviNSEuWMGVmAtr+wPsva3m/SlT5e6AIgU D7eRsdmJ66QPzWpra73egI7EwhcGWsuh2KBdca4qKuOQ2us2lpAZ1lwsawCpkYmQhBdS ymEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5/0wC2t7cVywdKR4LNLFp2cb+rRwAEMw5wAhQDhjwG8PH7AbPw bmS5O0p2zAa6mU9MWQwwbTHrpw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZ/J8wZJqPp9e/tFrH8L4yvIxwoGMHnF9Hch6cbRZzNTnpAyM9n/pJIg2l+EvomW0FTOEXE3g==
X-Received: by 10.107.30.81 with SMTP id e78mr15196346ioe.65.1510684125027; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-229-233.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.229.233]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w139sm5714819itb.5.2017.11.14.10.28.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:44 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <E78E2BB1-1FD1-490F-9CF7-DE0D6CB46703@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FBA5FFEC-9C5F-458C-A69C-BBE275B82F90"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Upleveling discussion (was Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host))
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:43 -0800
In-Reply-To: <F762F88F-ABCE-4B91-BA75-66D464420AEE@gmail.com>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d154133-a1de-7774-1589-c7069bf279ee@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org> <862687c9-c107-53a8-288a-29049097b0e1@acm.org> <AM5PR0701MB2836C00EA1AAC73E7E63F583E02B0@AM5PR0701MB2836.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2xacRco7ne7biQ93so0k-x4xSnM2jzoB13-sdVRLshQDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0Zz6Jxg_ZuEbBkMhBdEaZKOrtx-eUns7KWi9v-5PDBzg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xqwRH94dw=XJf5mt3STdDcTYmB_i1NbXP46shdJQeaPA@mail.gmail.com> <E7F9E3EF-B5AA-4698-8BBC-772228129277@fugue.com> <AM5PR0701MB2836DB6E4A3E3F8FC6CA5FE0E0280@AM5PR0701MB2836.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <F762F88F-ABCE-4B91-BA75-66D464420AEE@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tz9rqiCMIZULfwrfpHQXdEVU_Y8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:28:47 -0000

On Nov 13, 2017, at 19:22, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> c) The document should be Informational and not BCP
> 
> Regardless of people claiming on this thread that the IESG chose this to be a BCP, it is the *v6ops WG* that decided to send this in as BCP. The document was IETF Last Called as BCP way before it even hit the IESG. Given that there is no objective guidance in RFC2026 on what constitutes a BCP (“best” and "what is believed to be the best way” are not exactly objective) we could go either way. I am inclined to go along with the wishes of the WG (v6ops), the shepherding AD (Warren) in the absence of a more definitive measure of suitability. That said, as I conveyed to Warren, I would not object if this was made Informational either.

In light of its other deficiencies that I’ve previously complained about (lack of clarity about some significant contingencies, e.g., reclaiming prefixes, ND redirects, et cetera), I’d be marginally happier with Informational rather than Best Current Practice.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>