Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <[e-mail]>
To: "Lorenzo Colitti" <[e-mail]>; "Howard, Lee"
<[e-mail]>
Cc: "IPv6 Operations" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work
or abandon?


> Hi Lorenzo and all,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> > For as long as that disagreement exists, it will be hard to make a
recommendation,
> > which is likely to make it hard to get consensus on this draft.
> > We can go through that disagreement again, but I don't personally
think
> > the outcome will be any different from the one we had last time
around.
> [Bing] I basically agree with this claim. But that is actually why we
changed the document’s purpose from recommendations to considerations,
that it only discusses pros and cons of those possible scenarios, and
NOT make any formal recommendation.
> But maybe because the draft’s short name was not changed accordingly,
it has been still “draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-recommendations”, which made
people misunderstand the purpose of the draft.
>
> I’ve requested to the chairs to change the draft’s short name to
“draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-considerations”, I hope it is doable.


I think that an extraordinarily bad idea.  The draft name is an
identifier, something to tie together the various versions, comments
thereon, Last Calls etc. in the years to come.  Change the identifier -
as some foolish WGs are wont to do - and that  link is broken so it
becomes difficult to see what has gone on previously.  What matters is
what the RFC contains, such as the title and the running footing
thereof, not the identifier we use to tie together the work while
getting there.

Tom Petch

p.s. More generally, I have seen overloading an identifier with
semantics cause many network problems over the years and is always a bad
idea.

> Best regards,
> Bing
>
> From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lorenzo
Colitti
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 1:55 PM
> To: Howard, Lee
> Cc: IPv6 Operations
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work
or abandon?
>
> My recollection is that we never got around to publishing this
document because we never managed to agree on what to say in the
recommendations. I think that because the working group does not
actually have consensus on what ULAs should be used for.
>
> Generalizing and handwaving a bit, I think that the major disagreement
is between:
>
>   1.  Some proponents of ULAs are suggesting that ULAs (are being |
can be | should be) used in similar ways to RFC 1918, including using
them behind NPT66 or in the absence of global addresses, and say that
the document should list those as use cases.
>   2.  A fair number of WG members are vehemently opposed to such uses,
and say that WG documents should explicitly call out such practices as
harmful. We heard a few of those members at the mike yesterday during
the discussion of the design choices draft.
> For as long as that disagreement exists, it will be hard to make a
recommendation, which is likely to make it hard to get consensus on this
draft. We can go through that disagreement again, but I don't personally
think the outcome will be any different from the one we had last time
around.
>
> I happen to be in camp #2 and would be happy to support this draft if
it said that ULA-only deployments, NPT66 and NAT66 are harmful and
should be avoided. But I'm sure a fair number of people disagree with
me.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Howard, Lee
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> I see interest from Victor Kuarsingh, David Farmer, Alexandre
Petrescu, and
> Brian Carpenter. Can I ask each of you to do a review of the current
> document, and send comments to the mailing list?  That will give the
> authors
> and the WG something to work from.
>
> Following that, we can discuss whether we need additional discussion
at a
> meeting, or WGLC.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee
>
>
> On 11/3/15, 9:20 AM, "Victor Kuarsingh"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> >WG,
> >
> >My input is that we should continue this work.  Given ULAs are
already
> >in use, having a document which outlines those use cases is, in my
mind,
> >operationally beneficial.
> >
> >Perhaps we should be more clear that we would not be recommending the
> >use of ULAs, but keep to a unbiased document which outlines how they
> >have been used (just a use case discussion).  We can also include
> >objective technical points as to the pros/cons related to each use
case.
> >
> >It was also noted in another email (based on WG v6ops discussion
> >yesterday), that one such valid example was Cable Modem management
IPs
> >assigned ULA based addressing.  This is a valid technical use case.
> >
> >I am willing to help if required on this document.
> >
> >regards,
> >
> >Victor K
> >
> >On 2015-11-02 6:17 PM, Howard, Lee wrote:
> >> This document hasn¹t had any revisions or discussion in a while.
> >> Is there anyone interested in working on it?
> >>
> >> If we do not hear any interest, we will abandon this draft.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Lee
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable
> >>proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or
subject
> >>to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
> >>solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed.
> >>If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
> >>notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action
taken
> >>in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
> >>strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
> >>E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and
permanently
> >>delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> v6ops mailing list
> >> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>