Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon wrote:
> Yeah, a couple of reminders here.  First, the text in the RFC is
> explicitly recommending the use of IA_PD as the _only_ solution to
> delegating prefixes.

Which is problematic because there was no consensus that I could see
during the discussion phase of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability
that there was widespread use of DHCPv6-PD as a means of satisfying the
aims providing extra addresses for end hosts (as opposed to delegating
them to routers, which is a different issue entirely).  The lack of
consensus was remarked on at the time.  It seems extraordinary that this
also ended up

> Second, this is an RFC, and the document that
> proposes a way to delegate prefixes without DHCP is a draft, not an RFC.
>   That document is not mentioned in the RFC.   So to suggest that this
> document says that IETF consensus is that DHCP is NOT RECOMMENDED is
> simply incorrect.​

The interpretation of the principal author of BCP206 is diametrically
opposite on this point.

If there are polar opposite views in v6ops on how BCP206 should be
interpreted, this suggests that there is an ambiguity in the document.
If people in v6ops-wg cannot agree on what the document means, what hope
does anyone else have in interpreting it?

Nick