Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 28 January 2021 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CCB3A1387; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:52:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ffBL6IR5V22S; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:52:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4A7D3A1386; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:18e2:60b8:efab:c3f2] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:18e2:60b8:efab:c3f2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8E25283A33; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:52:07 +0000 (UTC)
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org>, "v6ops-chairs@ietf.org" <v6ops-chairs@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
References: <160325603610.17357.6914550111489766157@ietfa.amsl.com> <cf025acf-5192-d9a3-a727-8716d9d7b232@si6networks.com> <4fbc24c6-ef7b-5a99-3d04-69e6c9c3c90a@si6networks.com> <011245F3-558B-4F9D-97E5-56BBEE0419D2@cisco.com> <b9c1e036-399c-e7d4-d46d-ef2f29530e00@si6networks.com> <20210128065444.GU21@kduck.mit.edu>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <2193784e-1419-a1c2-6935-5153ca16f72d@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 04:49:04 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210128065444.GU21@kduck.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/V5iY9GW-R39xHC0jWHq5AWlHpK0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:52:14 -0000

On 28/1/21 03:54, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
[...]
>> The resulting text is:
>>      The above text does not include DHCPv6 Advertise messages sent in
>>      response to DHCPv6 Solicit messages, since Section 18.3.9 of
>>      [RFC8415] requires that a DHCPv6 server
>>      that is not going to assign an address or delegated prefix received
>>      as a hint in the Solicit message MUST NOT include that address or
>>      delegated prefix in the Advertise message. Additionally, any
>>      subsequent Request messages will trigger the response specified in
>>      this section, and therefore cause the address or prefix to be
>>      deprecated.
> 
> This definitely addresses my comment, thanks.
> Seeing it written out like that does make it seem like it would be a fine
> choice to deliberately decide to not say anything about Advertise messages,
> since the correct behavior is already required by the combination of what
> we do say and the existing specs.  So, please do what you feel is right in
> terms of adding this paragraph or leaving it out.

We can add it to the RATIONALE in that section. If you had that 
question, a reader of our document could possibly also have it. So it 
could be of help.


> Thank you for working through it with me (and thanks Bernie for helping
> out, too)!

Thank you!

Regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492