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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

David,

> On Feb 2, 2018, at 11:59 AM, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:41 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > b) If you can provide scoping text that defines which routers are covered,
> > rather than a generalisation like "pretty much all", we could stop arguing.
> 
> I can't think of any scoping text that cannot have holes punched in it, and hence won't end up being a separate document itself. If folks could provide scoping that will hold up against various objections and corner cases, whether for the entire document or individual requirements, I'd be happy to include it.
> 
> IMHO, such text is a null set -- there are too many corner cases, etc. For instance, you cannot say "routers designed for home use do not need to follow these recommendations" -- whose home, and under what conditions (managed by a provider, by the user, etc.)? Or "routers designed to operate at the Internet core" -- too ambiguous, and it's not always true... It _might_ be possible to find some _specific_, individual, requirements on which we can get _everyone_ to agree to a scope -- but I don't see any evidence of this yet.
> 
> 😊 /r
> 
> What about someting like this;
> 
> The primary focus is routers for enterprise or carrier use, however most of the features also have broad applicability to all routers.
> 

The current draft seems to me to be both very broad and specific at the same time.  For example, it doesn’t say anything about routing protocols, but then gets into lots of detail about which type of DHCPv6 and RA options to send.  Then doesn’t mention DHCPv6 prefix delegation.

It would be good to decide what the focus is, I am having difficulty telling from reading the draft.

Bob