Re: [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Eric,

On 10/2/21 04:38, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Hello Fernando,
> 
> Sorry for belated reply. See in-line for EV>
> 
> I used the published -06 (dated 11th December 2020 so after the IESG
> evaluation) as the basis for the discussion.  The -06 is now BCP,
> contains the right BCP 14 boilerplate, and a Last Call has completed,
> so, I will clear my DISCUSS later today (but still supporting Erik
> Kline's DISCUSS).
> 
> Also, I wonder whether a -07 is in preparation to better fit your
> comments below ?

Yep. We're just awaiting for Erik Kline's response to make sure his 
comments are addressed. ONce we have double-checked that, we'll post the 
rev.



> -  Suresh Krishnan's IoT directorate review: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05-iotdir-telechat-krishnan-2020-10-21/
>
> 
- Sheng Jiang's Internet directorate review:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05-intdir-telechat-jiang-2020-10-19/
>
>  Finally, did the authors replied to the IoT and INT directorates
> reviews ?

Yep. The associated changes will be incorporated in the next rev.



[....]
> Hi, Eric,
> 
> It seems that I somehow failed to respond to your message in time.
> My apologies for that. IN-line....
> 
> On 22/10/20 08:17, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote: [...]
>> -- Abstract -- I wonder why the word "IPv6" is never mentioned in
>> the abstract while the whole document is about IPv6. OTOH, perhaps
>> the default IP version in 2020 is indeed IPv6 ;-)
> 
> I've know included it :-)
> 
> EV> Looking at the -06 version, but, I guess that -07 will contain
> it

Yep. Sorry for the sloppy wording -- I should have said "in my working 
copy".




>> -- Section 3 -- Should the L-13 of RFC 7084 be also updated ?
>> Briefly discussed in section 3.3
> 
> Good grief. My take is that requirement L-13 is replaced with what's 
> requirement L-17 in our document.
> 
> So, maybe in Section 3 we should say:
> 
> "Requirement L-13 from RFC7084 is replaced with:
> 
> o  L-13: CE routers MUST signal stale configuration information as 
> specified in Section 3.3.
> 
> And the renumber (! :-) ) our list, so the current L-18 becomes
> L-17?
> 
> EV> this sounds good to me (including the renumbering ;-) )

Will do.



>> I wonder what is the actual structure of this section? There are 4
>> L-XX requirements followed by 3 subsections and mapping between
>> L-15 with section 3.1 and the same for L-16, L-17 but not for L-18
>> ?
> 
> That's correct. Sections 3.1-3.3 essentially spell out the details
> for reqs L-15-17.
> 
> There's no much more to add, but, for the sake of consistency we
> could add a short Section 3.4 with something like:
> 
> ---- cut here ---- 3.4. Automatic DHCPv6 RELEASEs
> 
> Some CE Routers are known to automatically CE send DHCPv6-PD RELEASE 
> messages upon reboot events. However, this may inadvertently trigger
> a flash-renumbering scenario, along with the associated problems
> discussed in [draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum], that this document tries
> to mitigate.
> 
> As a result, L-18 specifies that CE routers SHOULD NOT automatically 
> send DHCPv6-PD RELEASE messages upon reboot events. ---- cut here
> ----
> 
> ?
> 
> EV>  beside the spurious 'CE' in the proposed text, I support this
> change as it improves the readability

Great. Thanks!





>> As noted in section 3.1, L-13 is actually Section 6.3 of [RFC8415]
>> that is standard track
> 
> How about changing: *  The recommendations in this section expand
> from requirement L-13 in Section 4.3 of [RFC7084].
> 
> to
> 
> *  The recommendations in this section expand from requirement L-13
> in Section 4.3 of [RFC7084] and Section 6.3 of [RFC8415].
> 
> ?
> 
> EV> actually no more required IMHO with the above change about L-13
> 
>> 
>> -- Section 3.2 -- There is a reference to section 2.1 of this
>> document but the authors probably meant section 3.1 of this
>> document or Section 6.3 of [RFC8415].
> 
> Yep. Good grief! Fixed.
> 
> EV> ;-)

FWIW, it seems that the text contained the literal "Section 2.1" rather 
than an xml -- that's why the reference had not been automatically updated.

Thanks a lot!

Regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492