Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops WGLC

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

No sir - not for a change to a protocol specification.
The protocol specification says what it always has said;
that being, that IPv6 ND - including router and prefix
discovery - are to be supported as specified in RFC4861
and as qualified by the specifications in RFC5214.

This is strictly a clarification to an operational
recommendation - that being, if a router vendor were to
read the *operational* recommendations in this new version
of the document, they might incorrectly conclude that the
use of non-link-local IPv6 prefixes on ISATAP interfaces
should be deprecated. That would break backwards compat,
which would render the tool useless. Hence, the operational
recommendations need to be qualified.

Fred
[e-mail]  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:27 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Ron Bonica
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops WGLC
> 
> For a change to a protocol specification? I would start by 
> finding a working group chartered to work on protocols, and 
> discuss it with the chair.
> 
> We've been over this, Fred, many many times. You knew the 
> answer before you wrote the email. Act accordingly.
> 
> On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> 
> > Hi Fred,
> >  
> > It may seem unusual for an author to comment on their own document,
> > however in the case of ISATAP at least I am concerned that this new
> > version may encourage router vendors to build products that do not
> > provide necessary support for legacy hosts.
> >  
> > In particular, I have come to understand that legacy ISATAP hosts
> > depend on the router advertising non-link-local IPv6 prefixes on its
> > ISATAP interface. If a router vendor were to read the 
> recommendations
> > in this new version of the document, however, they might incorrectly
> > conclude that the use of non-link-local IPv6 prefixes on ISATAP
> > interfaces should be deprecated.
> >  
> > This seems like something that could be corrected with the addition
> > of 1-2 sentences. How would you like to proceed?
> >  
> > Thanks - Fred
> > 
> > From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:30 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Ron Bonica
> > Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops WGLC
> > 
> > This is to initiate a one week working group last call of 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops; it will close a week from 
> Friday. The IESG reviewed the document and asked for changes; 
> we need to be sure we are comfortable with the changes. The 
> diff from the version sent to the IESG last November is at 
> http://tinyurl.com/6dhowhf
> > 
> > Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, 
> minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the 
> authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with 
> a statement or finding additional issues that need to be 
> addressed, please post your comments to the list.
> 
>