IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Snac] I-D Action: draft-ietf-snac-simple-00.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 20 February 2023 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: snac@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: snac@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961BFC1595E5 for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 04:08:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DqJatoqjAI5m for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 04:08:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com (mail-qk1-x734.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA27C15152C for <snac@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 04:08:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id ay37so98286qkb.1 for <snac@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 04:08:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yAHG49GaoDHXaRomtF1RzaIDBVLM2Ygtn8fk8N2fqnQ=; b=w13G7NOioC1To/VJ5zP3L8YuNUnGyebckENl70C6NXiaabRQAcua0/W4X6sF4/I/xL dhMW1trxtVmgahSjqx9QzeH9LutWnwz/h6muIEBqmBFf3fNl5YRtJOyvPgbqy0eNtDLL WVZ6hqHQs7JOpf2JZ7ysUp7ZlfVCDWJ4VYpRZR3Cfwp7fZ+3kUvBRBlq/mjfAh3YmTGk +sKiEHlxkhiQPey6kdoHayni/rZ2049e0m2b8Ljxnw02TNvs7/JpnlfKmGxTfm23pvdG TVf2J/2Hr2fb0oS1FeGy6cim5pRTL2A2yGV9jbrtbx4wOgK/TxiGV+DCeS+tX+uPERM7 auRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=yAHG49GaoDHXaRomtF1RzaIDBVLM2Ygtn8fk8N2fqnQ=; b=gdAISclc8gx0+AVk3qgbRv3nT6H7DQ6aEtSNgCCoOQRnsCSk7hpxxP+FdlQYyOYXEE ymrf7e/MzIjDqOBW/leLlXkNar9uIyzfibfyOOl0qvAde/gSIE1tSA9HID1tpeGtBSPX ZrFUdR5YIHc9o7hMeecI8eW2dZ9dm2FsEddkk3jOYRutal12rk2mTNtGKRInJcYkSQaf Q82wXl9d6CagOeQEPpwrSJfPgwJXMR6Zjbum8P7e0H1bHIBxQjImEizQn/5ZvMMvwdzM bVdEyGs6wCMuKJJXJc8KDOA1EWkr0d6Hn1lZs4E6OXhqCPTOMufCEopgBjBVkjjG3rvt 55ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXGI9W5OmtgNEB3lXI9apamt5uP85lS7Mq0ONYctIhdFY2ES3Xy pPT5q42i5Z2V2AIZr58eHCt8RGAvoaEiMrMlv8aVGQJ/DH9ZsnfF
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/D51KefolTWQWqzEhjynrcFECkgAjz5iFmzFr+w8b9ZdTXLiZz2WPasq8sIehLdXmAol7WajfZqzENMPYdWps=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2142:b0:71f:b88c:a646 with SMTP id m2-20020a05620a214200b0071fb88ca646mr98259qkm.13.1676894904994; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 04:08:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <167631700481.44401.16650680728729430437@ietfa.amsl.com> <m1pma4sfrl.fsf@narrans.de>
In-Reply-To: <m1pma4sfrl.fsf@narrans.de>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 07:08:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mXF6qc__ELjArge3RfT1PvkzuzZLwHA_2bWp361+wNwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Obser <florian+ietf@narrans.de>
Cc: snac@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000023695b05f52085da"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/GPsX-6CUPT3YteEhU3CYBMSuwX4>
Subject: Re: [Snac] I-D Action: draft-ietf-snac-simple-00.txt
X-BeenThere: snac@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discussing problems relating to the automatic connection of stub networks to existing infrastructure networks. " <snac.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/snac>, <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/snac/>
List-Post: <mailto:snac@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/snac>, <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:08:28 -0000

Yup, good catch. Thanks!

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 07:06, Florian Obser <florian+ietf@narrans.de> wrote:

>
> 5.2.2 states:
> |   If IPv6 prefix delegation is available, which implies that IPv6
> |   service is also available on the infrastructure link, then the stub
> |   router MAY use IPv6 prefix delegation to acquire a prefix to
> |   advertise on the stub network, rather than allocating one out of its
> |   ULA prefix.
>
> and 5.2.3:
> |   Therefore, when DHCPv6-PD is available, the stub router MUST use DHCPv6
> |   PD rather than its own prefix.
>
> That's contradictory, I suppose 5.2.2 should say:
> |   If IPv6 prefix delegation is available, which implies that IPv6
> |   service is also available on the infrastructure link, then the stub
> |   router MUST use IPv6 prefix delegation to acquire a prefix to
> |   advertise on the stub network, rather than allocating one out of its
> |   ULA prefix.
>
> Or maybe just drop the last paragraph from 5.2.2 entirely.
>
> --
> In my defence, I have been left unsupervised.
>
> --
> Snac mailing list
> Snac@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/snac
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email