Re: [v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-06: (with COMMENT)

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

I've submitted -08 version
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras/

where

"Actually it would not even be possible as Section 5.5.3 of [RFC4862]
prevents hosts from setting valid lifetime for
addresses to zero."

is replaced with

"Actually it would not even be possible for unauthenticated RAs (which
is the most common deployment scenario) as Section 5.5.3 of RFC4862]
prevents hosts from setting valid lifetime for
addresses to zero unless RAs are authenticated."

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 3:27 AM, 神明達哉 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> At Fri, 10 Aug 2018 22:25:50 +1000,
> Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I've added a paragraph clarifying that we only modify preferred
>> lifetime and that RFC4862 does not
>> allow an RA with both preferred and valid lifetime for the prefix set
>> to 0 to invalidate the address completely:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-07
>
> To be very accurate, it's still allowed if the RA is authenticated:
>
>           Neighbor Discovery [RFC3971]).  If the Router Advertisement
>           was authenticated, the valid lifetime of the corresponding
>           address should be set to the Valid Lifetime in the received
>           option.
>
> (whether v6ops-conditional-ras should be this accurate is a different
> question, for which I don't have a strong opinion)
>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya



-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry