Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs

I suspect that there are at least two levels of requirements. If you look very hard at 1122/1123/1812, they don’t require that something be turned on; they require that the code do something specific when turned on. It must be possible for the network to deploy a certain thing. If the network doesn’t choose to, that’s on the network, not the implementation. But if the network wants to implement, oh I dunno avian carriers perhaps, and the products don’t support it, that’s a problem.

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 4, 2018, at 6:21 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Help me understand. Are you saying that mobile hotspots should implement
>> > DHCPv6 because this draft says so, but then never turn it on because it's
>> > bad for their users?
>> 
>> Lorenzo, are you saying that the requirements in this draft need to be
>> scoped? That doesn't sound unreasonable, but if so, what would the
>> scoping text look like?
> 
> Yes, I think that's the problem. The document takes a bit of a one-size-fits all approach. You also don't need netconf/yang/syslog on a mobile hotspot. Nor does it make sense to say "the I2RS interface to the RIB be supported" on a home router that has one default route and two directly-connected subnets. You probably also don't need DHCPv6 or RAs on a backbone router that's primarily intended as an LSR or segment router.
> 
> IETF standards are about interoperability, they are not shopping lists. (For an example of a document that suffered from this problem to a much greater degree, see RFC 7849, which was taken out of the WG and published as individual submission.)
> 
> Not sure how best to address this. A couple of options that come to mind are:
> Removing the parts of the draft that are essentially a device profile ("routers must support X, Y and Z").
> Changing the aforementioned parts of the draft so that instead of saying "routers must support X" they say "if routers support X, they must support RFCs A, B, and C". An example is section 3.1. Instead of saying "routers must support DHCPv6, SLAAC, first-hop router selection, etc." it could say "if routers are intended to act as first-hop routers for hosts, they must support...", and "if routers are intended to be operator-configurable, then they must allow disabling SLAAC and enabling DHCPv6". This is what RFC 7084 does - it defines a basic profile that everything must support, and then consists of a large number of statements along the lines of "if the CE router supports X, then it must do A, B, and C".
> Defining a number of device profiles that have mandatory requirements. This risks turning the document into a number of shopping lists, but perhaps those will be easier to get consensus on.
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops