IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 17 July 2017 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A366912778E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 AeOIaOZq-YvP for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BDDA124234 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v6HLXYIv003009 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Jul 2017 22:33:35 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Message-ID: <596D2D2D.5080406@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 22:33:33 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.15 (Macintosh/20170609)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
References: <596CF817.8040900@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3VP5u65gjwLNXw+DYkTbx-oy1jLz0JLrOX9kFR_41m+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3VP5u65gjwLNXw+DYkTbx-oy1jLz0JLrOX9kFR_41m+w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/-YzGFGi7lOEuduFvNUEX57xASGM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:33:42 -0000

[v6ops-chairs explicitly cc:'d because there is a serious WG consensus
problem here which has materially affected the outcome of an IETF process]

Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> the text you mention was not "slipped in" by mistake, it was the outcome
> of WG discussion.

No, it categorically was not.  There was extensive discussion about this
at -04, where it was clear there there there was operator support for
the position that DHCPv6 IA_NA was a viable option which would match the
aims of the draft, for example:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg23997.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg23999.html

+ several others.

Or the posting that sums this whole situation up:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg23856.html

As far as I can tell, there were very few people other than you
advocating the position that there was a problem with DHCPv6 IA_NA.

Despite this, you completely ignored the feedback from the working group
about DHCPv6 IA_NA, and changed the wording in -05 to state:

--
   Due to the drawbacks imposed by requiring explicit requests for
   address space (see section Section 4), it is RECOMMENDED that the
   network give the host the ability to use new addresses without
   requiring explicit requests.
---

-05 was introduced to the WG by the following email:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg24279.html

There was no mention of the fact that a change was made which
effectively ignored the outcome of the discussion.  12 days later
without any comment about this change, the document went to IETF LC.

You ignored the WG, didn't point it out, and despite extensive previous
objections, unfortunately the WG didn't notice.

The term "blindside" is your choice of phrase.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email