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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492