Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Brian,
>
> Please let me top-post to try to focus the discussion here:
>
> 1) My comment to the list was essentially arguing that this document
> contains a protocol specification, and such part is not suitable. I
> think it should be easy to converge on something regarding this one:
>

I can see how you might have come to that conclusion.  However, I don't
believe the document defines a new protocol or actually changes the old
one. As I see it, the document merely points out an interaction between two
existing protocol specifications, that allows for a desired implementation
outcome of providing a unique prefixes per host using SLAAC. Those being
primarily RFC4861 section 6.2.4, "Sending Unsolicited Router
Advertisements" and RFC6085 "Address Mapping of IPv6 Multicast Packets on
Ethernet".  The desired result is consistent with the protocols as they are
currently defined, the document doesn't change anything, it only points out
facts of the current specifications that may not be entirely obvious to
everyone implementing the specifications and that are critical to the
desired outcome of the draft.  Or put another way, the document specifies
how to implement to the current protocols consistent the desired outcome of
providing a unique prefixes per host.

What track IETF document is needed to accomplish that, is a judgment call
for the IESG, as I see it there are valid arguments for this to be a
standards track, BCP, or an informational document.

However, I'm fine with the current status of BCP personally.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================