Re: [v6ops] Making RDNSS a MUST?, hum v2

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

>>>I don't think there is a lot of Odin to writing that down for rdnss. The
>>>problem is that there is a large contingent who want a pony before they'll
>>>agree to it.

>>The 'pony' is simply that all nodes SHOULD support the relevant bits of
>>DHCP.

> I'm cool with SHOULD for DHCP relay on routers. But I hear some people 
> insisting on MUST, and on hosts, and suggesting that we should require 
> DHCP servers in routers, which is too much.  Take a small victory: don't 
> insist on the pony.

Now I'm confused again about which doc we're talking about.
Regarding all nodes....
RFC 6434 for all IPv6 nodes already says: 
"all hosts SHOULD implement address  configuration via DHCPv6"
" If a host implementation supports
   applications or other protocols that require configuration that is
   only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP."

So since nodes already have a SHOULD for DHCPv6 address and other configuration info, and there is strong opposition to making it a MUST, what more does the node doc need to say about DHCPv6 in order to achieve the above-requested pony?

RFC 6434 also says:
" Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106]."
There is a  proposal to make this a MUST. Since DHCPv6 is already a SHOULD, does that mean the pony ransom is met?

Regarding routers...
We have CE Routers with DHCPv6/RDNSS requirements described in RFC 7084. As an employee of an ISP who is impacted by, whose mass market customers are impacted by, and who procures such CE routers, I'm saying leave my CE routers alone. I'm not asking for additional operational help from v6ops. The CE routers my company procures that have built in DSL or G.fast modems will not be implementing DHCPv6 Relay unless my company says so. [It does have DHCPv6 server, because support for IA_PD for "cascaded" routers is necessary for a good user experience.] It's not up to IETF and I'm not asking IETF's opinion or "help" with this.
There are devices that support "tethering". The suppliers of those are not requesting additional IETF advice. The wireless operators those devices connect (on the WAN) to are not requesting additional advice. The consumers using the tethering function aren't complaining about anything being broken. So leave them alone.
We have enterprise operators asking for v6ops help in supplying what they need to deploy IPv6. Actually, we have them asking for what they want (max flexibility and choice, with others incurring the cost of supplying that), and not just what they need. But we should focus on what they need.
There are enterprise operators who are asking for help. V6ops is in a position to help them, but should restrict this help to assisting them with requirements for routers that they procure and that are under their control. V6ops has adopted a draft to supply such assistance (draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs). I have seen no arguments against having this document say that enterprise routers MUST implement DHCPv6 (stateful) server *and* DHCPv6 Relay. So, good, that pony can be delivered (with MUST and not just SHOULD). And since many enterprise operators say they want to allow all mass market devices to attach, this doc needs to say MUST implement RDNSS (in the RA), so enterprise routers will meet the needs of these operators.

Barbara