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

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 28 January 2021 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CCB3A1387; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:52:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ffBL6IR5V22S; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:52:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8E25283A33; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:52:07 +0000 (UTC)
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Owen DeLong <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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!

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492