Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

David,

We thought so.   There was a lot of discussion and changes as a result of the previous last call, the chairs thought a second last call was warranted.

Bob



> On Apr 10, 2024, at 8:37 AM, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Is another last call at this time a good idea? Don't we first need to resolve the SHOULD vs. MUST for the insertion of known-local ULAs? Then, apply appropriate rewrites as necessary, unless you think a last call is the best way to resolve that issue.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:29 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Given the number of changes since the first w.g. last call, the chairs, in consultation with the authors, are staring a second 6MAN working group last call for this document.
>> 
>> This email starts a second two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing "Preference for IPv6 ULAs over IPv4 addresses in RFC6724" document
>> 
>>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update/
>> 
>>  as a Standards Track document.
>> 
>> A summary of changes since the -06 version is below.   A good diff to review is:
>> 
>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&difftype=--html
>> 
>> [New draft on left due to line length problem with old draft]
>> 
>> Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This last call will end on 24 April 2024 23:59 UTC.
>> 
>> Also, one issue the authors would like feedback on is if the requirement is a SHOULD or MUST for inserting known-local ULA prefixes into their policy table with a precedence above both GUAs and IPv4, while leaving all other general ULAs at a lower precedence.  It is a SHOULD in the -08 draft, but there has been support for a MUST in the discussion. 
>> 
>> Bob, Jen, Ole
>> 6MAN chairs
>> 
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> Subject: Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08.txt
>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 7:47:57 AM PDT
>>> To: IPv6 List <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Actually it works better I notice with 08 on the left and 06 on the right, as -06 has the broken formatting, so please check the diff from -06 to the current -08 using:
>>> 
>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&difftype=--html
>>> 
>>> The changes are largely around making the MAY insert local entries into a SHOULD insert known-locals, with a little more text on how we’d determine those.
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>>> On 9 Apr 2024, at 15:13, Nick Buraglio <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> We have published -08 of the rfc6724 update, this fixes some
>>>> formatting and other typographical oversights
>>>> The following sections address comments from the lis (difft from -06
>>>> to -08 is the most useful comparison):
>>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&difftype=--html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Brief overview of the changes from -06:
>>>> 
>>>> Section 2:
>>>> Add terminology section and define known-local
>>>> 
>>>> Section 3:
>>>> Add section on elevating
>>>> upgrades the requirement in RFC 6724 for nodes to insert a higher
>>>> precedence entry in the policy table for observed ULA prefixes that
>>>> are known to be local, referred to in this document as "known-local"
>>>> ULAs, from a MAYto a SHOULD.
>>>> 
>>>> Section 4:
>>>> Changes the 6to4 prefix deprecation to match Teredo, adds further
>>>> clarity and reference to RFC6724 section 10.7
>>>> 
>>>> Section 5:
>>>> Add text to upgrade the requirement to automatically insert
>>>> known-local ULAs into a node's policy table from a MAY to a SHOULD.
>>>> 
>>>> Section 5.3
>>>> Further define insertion and removal parameters and requirements for
>>>> known-local ULA prefixes into table and associated values and label
>>>> 
>>>> Section 7.2:
>>>> Further clarify GUA-GUA preferred over ULA-ULA details
>>>> 
>>>> Section 7.3:
>>>> Further clarify ULA-ULA preferred over IPv4-IPv4 details
>>>> 
>>>> Section 8:
>>>> Housekeeping and formatting changes
>>>> 
>>>> Section 9.2:
>>>> Describe the new known-local interaction and how it addresses issues
>>>> with ULAs in global DNS
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Further copy edit and housekeeping.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota   
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================