Re: [renum] SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps

["Liubing (Leo)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Jiang
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:45 PM
> To: Liubing (Leo); [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps
> 
> Hi, Bing,
> 
> It is better to at least mention the direction of next step - clearly redefine the
> flag correspondent host behavior in standards.

[Bing] Agree. Thanks for your clarification.

> 
> A couple of more detailed comments: you have used word "gap" several
> times, while you did not clear describe what gap it is. You have only
> described issues/problems. Gaps should be something that issue solved if
> you could fill them. Subsections of Section 3 are problem scenarios. But your
> subsection titles do not clear express the meaning.

[Bing] OK, I can make it more clear in the next version or in the new solution draft. Thanks for your careful review.

B.R.
Bing

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Sheng
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Liubing (Leo)
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:17 PM
> >To: Sheng Jiang; [e-mail]
> >Cc: [e-mail]
> >Subject: RE: SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps
> >
> >Hi, Sheng
> >
> >Thanks for your comments.
> >This is the first step, to see if there is consensus of agreeing the problems
> >should be fixed in current standard. If so, we'll submit a draft to fix the
> >ambiguous issue.
> >
> >B.R.
> >Bing
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sheng Jiang
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:37 AM
> >> To: Liubing (Leo); [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: RE: SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps
> >>
> >> This has been a historic issue. Although there was discussions several
> times,
> >> the specification still remain ambiguous. The differences in OS
> >> implementations are good proof that we need to do something in IETF.
> >>
> >> This document has well described the current standard status and reality
> >> operational issues. However, for me, this document fails to suggest what
> >we
> >> may do to fix this issue, neither in the gap section or as conclusion. It is
> >clear
> >> that part of RFC4862 needs to be updated to make the configuration
> >> behavior clear and consistent. For that, this document fails to give a
> feasible
> >> proposal. Maybe, the authors has saved that for another follow up
> standard
> >> track document.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Sheng
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >> Behalf
> >> >Of Liubing (Leo)
> >> >Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM
> >> >To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> >Cc: [e-mail]
> >> >Subject: [renum] SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps
> >> >
> >> >Hi, 6man & v6ops
> >> >
> >> >We submitted a new draft to discuss the SLAAC/DHCPv6 interaction
> gaps.
> >> >
> >> >As we know there are several flags in RA messages regarding with the
> host
> >> >configuration behavior, which are A (Autonomous) flag, M (Managed)
> flag,
> >> >and O (Otherconfig) flag.
> >> >For some reason, the host behavior of interpreting the flags is
> ambiguous
> >in
> >> >the standard (mainly RFC4862). I presented a draft discussing M flag
> >> behavior
> >> >in 6man @ietf84, and there were some feedbacks arguing the same
> issue.
> >> >This draft analyzed all the three flags, and provided test result of current
> >> >implementations, it showed the behavior of different mainstream
> desktop
> >> >OSes have varied. The ambiguous and variation might cause operational
> >> >problems, such as renumbering (used to discuss in 6renum WG and been
> >> >documented in the WG drafts), cold start problem, and management
> >> >gaps .etc.
> >> >
> >> >Your review and comments would be appreciated very much.
> >> >
> >> >All the best,
> >> >Bing
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:52 PM
> >> >> To: Liubing (Leo)
> >> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> >> Subject: New Version Notification for
> >> >> draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt
> >> >> has been successfully submitted by Bing Liu and posted to the
> >> >> IETF repository.
> >> >>
> >> >> Filename:	 draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
> >> >> Revision:	 01
> >> >> Title:		 DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction
> >Problem
> >> >> Statement
> >> >> Creation date:	 2013-02-25
> >> >> Group:		 Individual Submission
> >> >> Number of pages: 12
> >> >> URL:
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-
> >> >> 01.txt
> >> >> Status:
> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
> >> >> Htmlized:
> >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01
> >> >> Diff:
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01
> >> >>
> >> >> Abstract:
> >> >>    This document analyzes the host behavior of DHCPv6/SLAAC
> >> interaction
> >> >>    issue. It reviews the standard definition of the host behaviors and
> >> >>    provides the test results of current mainstream implementations.
> >> Some
> >> >>    potential operational gaps of the interaction are also described.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The IETF Secretariat
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >renum mailing list
> >> >[e-mail]
> >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum