Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt

Re-,

Please note that RFC6333 says the following: 

"As such, the B4 element SHOULD
   implement a DNS proxy, following the recommendations of [RFC5625]."

Using a MUST for RFC5625 for all the mechanisms will conflict with the text above from RFC6333. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de JORDI PALET
> MARTINEZ
> Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2017 16:08
> À : v6ops@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-
> 00.txt
> 
> Hi Masanobu,
> 
> Regarding RFC5625, I think you’re right.
> 
> Even if this is explicitly mention in section 6.4 of RFC6877, it is also
> mention in other transition mechanism.
> 
> Unless I heard otherwise from the WG, I think it will be correct to remove
> it from 464XLAT and include it as a general LAN requirement.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Masanobu Kawashima <kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com>
> Responder a: <kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com>
> Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 9:12
> Para: "jordi.palet@consulintel.es" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>,
> "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Asunto: RE: New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt
> 
> 
>     Hi Jordi,
> 
>     I have comments.
> 
>     > In all the IPv4-in-IPv6 transition mechanisms, I’m requiring:
>     > “The CE router MUST support the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP4o6)
> transport described in [RFC7341].”
>     >
>     > I got a comment that this is not needed, however, my feeling is that
> the configuration of certain IPv4 parameters for
>     > the CPE, during the transition, are still needed and the ISP may
> need that.
> 
>     They may need that function. However, it depends on their network
> environment, etc.
>     So, I will agree with it if it will be 'MAY'.
> 
>     As for requirement [464XLAT-3], RFC5625 is mentioned about DNS Proxy
>     Implementation Guidelines. It is not just for 464XLAT.
>     We should remove it or may write it in other section if it is useful.
> 
>     Regards,
>     Masanobu
> 
>     ========================
>      NEC Platforms, Ltd.
>      Access-Device Division
>      KAWASHIMA Masanobu
>     ========================
> 
> 
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
> MARTINEZ
>     > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 6:48 AM
>     > To: v6ops@ietf.org
>     > Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-
> rfc7084-bis-00.txt
>     >
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > I’ve submitted WG 00 for this document.
>     >
>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis
>     >
>     > I tried to incorporate all the inputs that I captured in the
> meeting, hopefully didn’t miss anything!, plus some minor
>     > edits.
>     >
>     > Here is the summary for the changes:
>     >
>     > 1) Added an annex (A) regarding the code considerations as I mention
> in my presentation.
>     > 2) Added an annex (B) with the changes from the original RFC7084.
>     > 3) Transition mechanisms in alphabetical order.
>     > 4) Changed the IPv6-in-IPv4 transition mechanism (6RD and 6in4) to
> MAY instead of SHOULD.
>     > 5) Added a new section regarding IPv4 multicast support in IPv6-
> only-WAN.
>     > 6) Added some text regarding the PCP support to learn PLAT info in
> 464XLAT (RFC 7225).
>     >
>     > I’ve one question for the WG.
>     >
>     > In all the IPv4-in-IPv6 transition mechanisms, I’m requiring:
>     > “The CE router MUST support the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP4o6)
> transport described in [RFC7341].”
>     >
>     > I got a comment that this is not needed, however, my feeling is that
> the configuration of certain IPv4 parameters for
>     > the CPE, during the transition, are still needed and the ISP may
> need that.
>     >
>     > So, the question is, what do you think about this?
>     >
>     > Please, note that the original RFC7084 didn’t considered this
> (RFC7341 didn’t exist when it was published), so the actual
>     > version is requesting this not just for the new supported transition
> mechanisms (lw4o6, MAP T/E, 464XLAT), but also for
>     > DS-Lite.
>     >
>     > Please provide inputs ASAP. I will like to avoid having this
> document sleeping for too many weeks, and my goal is to publish
>     > a new version in about 2 weeks with any comments received.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > Jordi
>     >
>     >
>     > -----Mensaje original-----
>     > De: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>     > Responder a: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>     > Fecha: domingo, 2 de abril de 2017, 22:57
>     > Para: Jordi Palet <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, Jordi Palet Martinez
> <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
>     > Asunto: New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt
>     >
>     >
>     >     A new version of I-D, draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt
>     >     has been successfully submitted by Jordi Palet Martinez and
> posted to the
>     >     IETF repository.
>     >
>     >     Name:		draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis
>     >     Revision:	00
>     >     Title:		Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
>     >     Document date:	2017-03-31
>     >     Group:		Individual Submission
>     >     Pages:		29
>     >     URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
> v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt
>     >     Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-v6ops-
> rfc7084-bis/
>     >     Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-v6ops-rfc7084-
> bis-00
>     >     Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
> v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00
>     >
>     >
>     >     Abstract:
>     >        This document specifies requirements for an IPv6 Customer
> Edge (CE)
>     >        router.  Specifically, the current version of this document
> focuses
>     >        on the basic provisioning of an IPv6 CE router and the
> provisioning
>     >        of IPv6 hosts attached to it.  The document also covers
> several
>     >        transition technologies, as required in a world where IPv4
> addresses
>     >        are no longer available, so hosts in the customer LANs with
> IPv4-only
>     >        or IPv6-only applications or devices, requiring to
> communicate with
>     >        IPv4-only services at the Internet, are able to do so.  The
> document
>     >        obsoletes RFC 7084.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time
> of submission
>     >     until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>     >
>     >     The IETF Secretariat
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > **********************************************
>     > IPv4 is over
>     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>     > http://www.consulintel.es
>     > The IPv6 Company
>     >
>     > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be
>     > for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
>     > distribution or use of the contents of this information, including
> attached files, is prohibited.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > v6ops mailing list
>     > v6ops@ietf.org
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops