Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt

All good changes, thanks.

About this in section 3:

"AUTHORS' NOTE: The authors have had feedback suggesting this requirement should be a MUST, which would mean that "known-local" ULAs would take precedence on compliant implementations over all IPv6 GUAs and all IPv4 addresses, but other general ULAs would not."

I think the answer is clear, in section 8:

"Receiving a DNS response for a ULA destination that is not attached to the local network... will typically fail..."

That justifies the MUST in my opinion. But I agree we need to hear from kernel implementers.

    Brian

Nit: in the .txt version, there is a glitch in the rendering of Rule 5
at the beginning of section 8.1 - the newlines have been lost.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 05-Apr-24 08:05, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt is now available. It is a
> work item of the IPv6 Maintenance (6MAN) WG of the IETF.
> 
>     Title:   Preference for IPv6 ULAs over IPv4 addresses in RFC6724
>     Authors: Nick Buraglio
>              Tim Chown
>              Jeremy Duncan
>     Name:    draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt
>     Pages:   15
>     Dates:   2024-04-04
> 
> Abstract:
> 
>     When RFC 6724 was published it defined an address selection algorithm
>     along with a default policy table, and noted a number of examples
>     where that policy table might benefit from adjustment for specific
>     scenarios.  It also noted that it is important for implementations to
>     provide a way to change the default policies as more experience is
>     gained.  This update draws on several years of operational experience
>     to refine RFC 6724 further, with particular emphasis on preference
>     for the use of ULA addresses over IPv4 addresses and the addition of
>     mandatory support for Rule 5.5.  The update also demotes the
>     preference for 6to4 addresses.  The changes to default behavior
>     improve supportability of common use cases, including automatic /
>     unmanaged scenarios.  It is recognized that some less common
>     deployment scenarios may require explicit configuration or custom
>     changes to achieve desired operational parameters.
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update/
> 
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> 