Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

> Using IA_PD or prefix delegation are both clearly superior solutions to
the problem.

That was meant to be "or SLAAC."

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The change was not inserted into the document in February of 2016.  Be
> that as it may, my point is that this particular aspect of the discussion
> is out of scope: if there was a process failure, appeal is your option.   I
> agree that it's not a practical option.
>
> So, independent of that, if you think that the current documented
> consensus is a *problem, *then you are absolutely right to want to do a
> new document.   If that's what you want, you need to do (at least) two
> things:
>
> 1. Explain, in a way that actually makes sense, what it is that the
> document says that is wrong, and why it is wrong.   You haven't done that.
>
> 2. Explain what it should say instead.   I would argue that your
> explanation either has to say "privacy isn't that important after all" or
> else address the privacy issue in a way that is equally satisfactory.  I
> don't see any way to do that with IA_NA.   IA_NA by definition puts the
> whole privacy thing off on the DHCP server, which may or may not do the
> right thing.   The client has no agency.   Using IA_PD or prefix delegation
> are both clearly superior solutions to the problem.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Ted Lemon wrote:
>> > Nick, it's not actually up to you to determine consensus, and you do not
>> > seem to actually be describing a situation where there was a lack of
>> > consensus.   If you feel that there was indeed an error made by the
>> > chairs, who /were/ responsible for calling consensus, the right thing to
>> > do would be to appeal to the chairs, and if you are not satisfied by
>> > their response, to appeal to the IESG, and so on.
>>
>> I'm not attempting to determine consensus, simply expressing an opinion
>> that there was substantial opposition to the principals behind a
>> sentence that was inserted into the draft, i.e. querying whether that
>> consensus existed to start with.  There isn't a problem with querying a
>> decision.
>>
>> The difficulty with formally appealing the consensus call is that the
>> change was inserted into the document in Feb 2016, and there were
>> several more revisions of the document before it was published as a BCP
>> some months later, and there were no objections because it wasn't
>> obvious what it meant at the time.
>>
>> As an aside, the fact that there is a good deal of disagreement on its
>> interpretation today makes it clear that that this sentence is open to
>> vastly different interpretations.
>>
>> So procedurally, there was not a problem with the consensus process
>> which means that an appeal to the chairs / IESG / etc would be almost
>> certain to fail, not least because this happened some time ago.  The
>> only obvious way to deal with the problem is to bring it back to the
>> working group with an explicit statement of the semantic problem, which
>> is what has happened.
>>
>> It would be useful for the chairs to express an opinion if a different
>> approach were more appropriate.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>