Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-linkova-v6ops-ipmaclimi-00.txt

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Well-said.  Thank you Lorenzo and Jen.

Yours,

Joel

On 11/9/2022 10:15 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 2:13 PM Ole Troan 
> <otroan=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     A requirement like that would be perfectly fine in an RFQ. Less so
>     in an RFC.
>
>
> Ok, so then let's see *what* would be acceptable to put into an RFC.
>
> The draft says that the hardware must allow the operator to configure 
> the limits that the network places on the hosts, and should do 
> something reasonable when the limit is hit, such as drop the address 
> that was used least recently. I don't see how any of these statements 
> can be controversial and it makes sense for them to be in an RFC. 
> These hosts do exist (example: ChromeOS), and if a network operator 
> (example: Jen) wants to support them, then it should be possible to do so.
>
> The draft also says that if the network does not allow enough 
> addresses per client for current implementations, those 
> implementations will experience user-visible outages. As I see it, 
> that's simply a fact (those implementations do exist, and they do 
> fail), so I don't see how it could be controversial.
>
> The thing that there doesn't seem to be consensus on is whether the 
> IETF can/should place a minimum requirement on the number of addresses.
>
> Did I miss something?
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops