Re: [v6ops] Pretty Please? - Disposition of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 09 December 2020 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 7B2983A1455 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 04:57:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 d7yXJsD4rsX5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 04:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 306DA3A1438 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 04:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kmz1g-00007vC; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:57:00 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kmz1g-00007vC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CAHw9_iKr2HF4iZYfDWXTqi59HHKcv3UzpLST7VB_rook3MZMWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_i+G-j-S8H9VBf=n0L-HFXYzV6Dk0nrRpe1C_eADP+6XMg@mail.gmail.com> <10364e4c-c037-bc7f-6db3-e69ef42d05a1@network-heretics.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:48:53 -0500 ." <10364e4c-c037-bc7f-6db3-e69ef42d05a1@network-heretics.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 13:56:58 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VZvZ3YCiAGVuD0mXOp8JwaYIK5w>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Pretty Please? - Disposition of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 12:57:05 -0000

>    Having said that I am starting to dislike use of 2119 definitions
>    for keywords in in BCPs, because they inherently need to mean
>    different things in the context of a BCP, than in the context
>    of a protocol specification.   For example:
> 
>    In a BCP - MUST NOT presumably means "doing this violates what
>    we consider best current practice".  In a protocol specification
>    - MUST NOT means "a protocol implementation violates the standard
>    if it does this"

In the context of this document I don't see much difference. Changing how
protocol values are set does change the protocol. 

In general, violating a MUST in a protocol means that bad things are likely
to happen. That's the same in this BCP.