[v6ops] Clarification/addition on the cpe-slaac doc.

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 10 February 2021 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 13E7E3A0C98 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 06:47:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 ajcZNli8BEj7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 06:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E39A3A0C85 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 06:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id e18so3131413lja.12 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 06:47:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6mM++0zrJDAuVU/pdt0SBu8lYuLxwZREd16XXfWMwZk=; b=AZNU6DqV7mvyS2/uUU9+VtXcDB4rP5jDnuKi50Zxhca5RUjaEj9ZZ15svhphtZkLjn JPe6OnEIvH3D+ZIusLDZVH0BZFFToiIxtO/tqxQOmhpCWEf2dl1O2rjNn8bwrIk4LW17 j1OidsYKeJm169OZBUaDzpcYQJOHT+dxiVPINz819jWIGo0R8IoZjxC3Vc/M/dcVtnRc b38R8R0wA93WvXnMOGaq1ZUtRz/kT+aBPuuGvjQVsI5G7fSLHTDWTqX5qGGiRIZsKE9i gUVXpCs9zkMp26bX9BWXoPbhsWn0FCtfjDjay4B4Ba/SOxw8xgMu0EJzM0lX8W3xe0II NgAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6mM++0zrJDAuVU/pdt0SBu8lYuLxwZREd16XXfWMwZk=; b=ht3Y4VFpjF1glSBWf/3AwiCesqmvovRaxhw7LDsgrNLQCaKbXXaZasMKS0sh/fNNYR s4YT/xeyD6f5wahcsKB4jaUo2c/oq7qHQ09rkGtCkPgvKsi1rniRphsEohOtHL3pXOS8 DETyoo0Hc8slKiZBbDq0zUofO8eGdijpT9z0mq/MTRHNDV/V0HTkZ3xywci2RnmFZ2SG BybOxesSYr7ZmFgg7GCwjTKP+vAJlIZ6t5rOR0ef1CuGxPG2Ajs5xmECv2G7FI1/r/vn Gl/FLw6NF7eLTvrSwsMQSDaia3CSVPd0aduB/hSd5IJCrlrjOUQaIuHimGb7xbv+y6/C 9+4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532xrzBpRbtvcdtvu6cb8oZNE1IiAETLuCy19UMPWbHJyfoZPOIr Si0qnkP/SLGL3BsOTDAzeV9Dc+qLr+3g9e10cJoGL+bF+1kOYKbE
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzIRQxZgsCmltPWDSz+fEvy6iDW753PmWThAY5OhANL+y91ZUpidFmBakA0PCp/IqRYQ8BuR/qyeZLq6STvwQE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b52c:: with SMTP id z12mr1023609ljm.502.1612968437629; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 06:47:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:46:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+uALQiarCRs=m7rBNJ25R62PmRev2zHm+vZ=2VJw9yHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c2561505bafc7a3d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/41x86uGT3yAj39YWCZctcIMGaME>
Subject: [v6ops] Clarification/addition on the cpe-slaac doc.
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:47:22 -0000

Dear V6OPS,

During the final editing of cpe-slaac, the authors noticed that we should
have included:
“WPD-10: CE routers SHOULD, by default, attempt to use a stable IAID value
that does not change between CE restarts, DHCPv6 client restarts, or
interface state changes. e.g., Transient PPP interfaces.”

To me this seems like an obvious and non-contentious clarification (it's
already required in RFC8145), and so I'm asking the authors to include it
while addressing the other IESG comments/ballots.


Please let me know by the end of Monday if you *strongly* object to this
change.
W

-- 
Perhaps they really do strive for incomprehensibility in their specs.
After all, when the liturgy was in Latin, the laity knew their place.
-- Michael Padlipsky