[mif] Summary issues after meeting, draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

We discussed on the email list and at the meeting about issues related
to draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04.

The following issues were presented during the meeting:

> MAC address not configured
>
> Answer: it doesn’t need to be. MAC derived via ND.

This is not what was said on the email list, and even less at the mic.
On the mailing list, the range of comments were from "no MAC" to "maybe
MAC".  To me the latter seemed more agreed.

> Lifetime is 32, not 16 bits
>
> Answer: Does not appear to be a problem, timing calculation is OS
> dependent, but it is done on 32 or 64 bit counters.

In the recent emails on the mailing list there seemed to be convergence.
  But not the way you mention it.

At the mic there seemed to exist as many supportive comments of doing
lifetime (be it 16 or 32) as of doing no lifetime at all.

In addition, the following issues were listed by email, with discussion.

1. Separate specific routes from default routes.
    Authors disagree with me, and Ted agrees with authors.

2. Message size better be smaller.
    Author indicates the length is 30bytes by now.
    But I'd suggest it could be 20bytes if the encoding were not split
    as nexthop-prefixoption (as is now).

3. Only one default route?
    Discussion seems to indicate that maybe the presence of several
    default routes would be in scope here.  And if coupled with a novel
    source address selection scheme may constitute new work maybe 6man.

Alex
PS: Chairs, if you believe I should stop tracking these issues then
     please let me know.