IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 11 August 2015 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7D71AC3E0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 64wJnat87zMc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (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 273491A8AD2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so10041603iod.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=l0R6/ZkYaIIZKyhfrw+KV37oZOQ088AnOVGklUleFWM=; b=uhsPHou8bsnL56E0gVFJyO3sDv3KK2LM5AijcQGdQ6teeglZnOBYy0483MS2vaVvuL 4UH5P5OAb8drBtE5lBbqMVErZpXEt4pcF3qgLQibRJ0gqNkZAYh9UgMsak7Vu0lxA8a1 4Xi+BhOyJQqjBGVh1pHeiTOqVobcvmA0cwE7wvwImddl6E9CLT173QmxW/ZZRkgUH19N Q/tVURODPuxfFimMd5Yesv9XLdZfUojRgkmqhRbj95m7GBj/09JBMsBJCVZeB2asDNdq RAogitxLFzq8fUnhvDKzEVAHxoBcE3HFemja0fm/pVGJhPZmyXl+D3kJqmwxyGwIXtUy EBRg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.129.81 with SMTP id c78mr32272165iod.4.1439309104523; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.143.7 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2AJ4+cvPk-XDzuxehCP+Pw-nUngxhaVMYwUvQJDK8ExA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20CE2629-7D40-4B5B-833E-4A401308027F@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0aQ8yQR+2GyuVXJS0DrJasmqFz6RLQcodrCW982pNVGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wMNuPe5mmjDx5xG+3GmN-k47gsabiMQX56fiT+Kk-QcA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2AJ4+cvPk-XDzuxehCP+Pw-nUngxhaVMYwUvQJDK8ExA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:05:04 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: C7Klz02aIJs7vHcNPgB_ryLNVNg
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfb-8SBc0_f+tBfSST7-StQp_ug27r=ntRAmfjPwj=rmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/x6qLlTTuctO7UYriaFF3oEKeFE0>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 11 Aug 2015 16:05:07 -0000

At Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:05:29 +0900,
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> > I think link-local addresses should be valid for RDNSS options.
> > They're valid for applications to use (as per RFC4007), and mean that
> > an on-link resolver service would not be impacted by GUA or ULA
> > renumbering events.
>
> Saying that link-local addresses are valid seems like a reasonable position
> to take, yes. I'd like us to note it explicitly in the document, though.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether to allow link-local
addresses per se, but if we allow that, I think we should clarify
which link (or link zone, in RFC4007 terminology) that link-local
address belongs to.  In the case of router advertisements, I guess it
makes most sense if it's the link over which the RA is sent out and
received.  It might even look trivial, but I still think it's better
to clarify that explicitly.  (And, I wouldn't be surprised if someone
disagrees with this interpretation that makes most sense to me quite
obviously.  In that case it's even a stronger reason why this should
better be clarified explicitly).

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email