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

Hi Ted,

This contribution made us realize that perhaps a clarification would be
useful: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg28040.html

Kind regards,

Job

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 at 20:17, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> The RFC doesn't say that anywhere in it.   There is no version of the
> draft that was published on 2/12/2016.   The -01 version of the draft was
> published in March of that year; the final version in July.   Can you
> please point out the place in the text where it says what you are saying it
> says?
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>
>> draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00 has just been posted as an ID.
>>
>> It has recently been claimed that IETF best current practice is that
>> DHCPv6 is not recommended due to the recommendations section in
>> RFC7934/BCP204.
>>
>> The relevant text was slipped into
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05 on Feb 12, 2016, a couple of
>> days before the document went into IETF LC.  There was no discussion
>> about this text change either in the v6ops working group or at IETF
>> review or IESG level: perhaps the modification appeared innocuous or
>> maybe it just wasn't not noticed.
>>
>> Next thing, there's a BCP which is being interpreted as meaning that
>> DHCPv6 is NOT RECOMMENDED for operational use.  Wow. :-)
>>
>> This presents a variety of problems, the most serious of which are 1)
>> that a BCP is implying that the use of DHCPv6 was "NOT RECOMMENDED"
>> without extensive discussion or debate about this particular issue at
>> the relevant working group, and ignores the both the widespread use of
>> the protocol and its active development at the ietf, and 2) that a
>> change in the status of DHCPv6 to "NOT RECOMMENDED" leaves a huge hole
>> in the IPv6 host specification.
>>
>> Job and I believe that this went through by mistake and that if the WG
>> had noticed the change at the time, consensus would never have been
>> reached on what is a serious semantic change to IETF lore.
>>
>> Right now, the most prudent course of action would be to roll back the
>> change until a proper debate has been had.  We invite WG comments on
>> this doc.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> > A new version of I-D, draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
>> > has been successfully submitted by Nick Hilliard and posted to the
>> > IETF repository.
>> >
>> > Name:         draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update
>> > Revision:     00
>> > Title:                Update for IPv6 Host Address Availability
>> Recommendations
>> > Document date:        2017-07-17
>> > Group:                Individual Submission
>> > Pages:                4
>> > URL:
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
>> > Status:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update/
>> > Htmlized:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00
>> > Htmlized:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00
>> >
>> >
>> > Abstract:
>> >    The IPv6 Host Address Availability Recommendations Best Current
>> >    Practice (RFC 7934), describes why IPv6 hosts should use multiple
>> >    global addresses when attaching to a network.  This document updates
>> >    RFC 7934 by removing a recommendation for networks to give the host
>> >    the ability to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission
>> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> >
>> > The IETF Secretariat
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>