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

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Tue, 08 December 2020 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 9FD093A0C04 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:14:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 fet3u6pLO8Ta for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 678AE3A0AE6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id f24so22011019ljk.13 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:14:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DLJ9JYOc0/j6JnYcy3FmEjTOZscY0bdLf4JJy1XeWDw=; b=aEBJywbC/UoFhWN0RCxjrBqRz2NbmfFlMOMLnAtgWPVGQTsPl3sn7ARKBZPffEK7yD UlrSZoPUu3EzMsFlqpMMzzvwLJWV0Wb+9iuUGrhWb3yJ7cTf+fiyEQ2l8mZ60qmN/Edk jWcB66W7LlNC/qX68hLqkPOwK/GWJktxVUjVjilnxA0CqoQyth8Bbaq3iIzlO6nnmIMK Lw0NInvOVPvtdVHqnTsazu09U8F+H+BxWxCIknzHBluGOp6gTW0D3cxZgoMiMYtqmX7K NedUhrJSvo0Ty02jAYKTAAxFPaeLckax84O5soNBS6Qsd6S4yrrS69vl8TeIhWrlgHU7 UVPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DLJ9JYOc0/j6JnYcy3FmEjTOZscY0bdLf4JJy1XeWDw=; b=qEYB2DkgJQu5e+BQYN4Uj3zNUdwkvewe6QLUiWKcgFOYPerYFB3HQIV9vtVlXy/fVa 31iyehpWY7ibBa/+ed+XZH3Gl8pXTuaFo1GpRNp087oUFX69TchOi9MYGoqZ2VyljoJR GQcEkF9nFi06n/loUBVXdsc/ZH4dczMSeqQTf/MoGPTykJ2YHx4aowbJzXMoKc4r9N9s 12zwI1mo9Au4EpNXcy1RW6NARTJBaGyBoQR8xK+UerVCCa73YxGn2dl1mtysIGDLTMy9 oR6fwLtE2cIoB8yg3jRTorVM3Iysjpx+ZeUGderMr6+gWMGfuTNIvxKGAWDtZgcxoKdD 3uQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+6eNapBnv+t21yBSX8GqHESLlU4LfatkdEEJArP+11RyleYbh AX3kTsr0Op2S7Vhk0NMgGizp8f4JKRroq5scjasDgVv7OTVEUcLX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJQuj7Gd360uLRUfRvBF+J6oY45M5myWuYBCgTKWu33mf1trXiHhrNbaX/y+V7qoRdquER38U1ROLlNXZoL14=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b5cb:: with SMTP id g11mr1211136ljn.502.1607462062267; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:14:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHw9_iKr2HF4iZYfDWXTqi59HHKcv3UzpLST7VB_rook3MZMWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iKr2HF4iZYfDWXTqi59HHKcv3UzpLST7VB_rook3MZMWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:13:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+G-j-S8H9VBf=n0L-HFXYzV6Dk0nrRpe1C_eADP+6XMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/dgtr_QKH3x29WY2DSHYhrMztL5I>
Subject: [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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 21:14:31 -0000

[ Subject edited to start new thread ]
Hello again all,

I started this thread back in October, and then didn't really follow-up; sorry.

This document went through WGLC as Informational, but uses
"pseudo-RFC2119" language
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/,
Section 2). This section says things like (cribbed from RFC7084):
" Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST",
   "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as
   described in [RFC2119].  This document uses these keywords not
   strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the
   purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality. "

This caused confusion during IESG eval -- what does the MUST in "CE
routers MUST signal stale configuration..." mean if not in the RFC2119
sense?

Also, much of the document reads like a BCP - Alissa specifically
called this out in her DISCUSS, but there were quite a few others who
agreed.

As an example, is it not a Best Current Practice that e.g: "CE routers
SHOULD NOT automatically send DHCPv6-PD RELEASE messages upon reboot
events."? If not, what does this document mean for an implementer?


There are 2 options here:
1: We change Section 2 to use normal RFC2119/RFC8174 language. I send
it back to the WG and it gets WGLCed as BCP.

2: We remove Section 2, and all of the uppercase/lowercase words. I
send it back to the WG (because of the changes) and it gets WGLCed as
Informational again.

I really prefer Option 1 -- to me it reads much more like a BCP,
documenting Best Current Practices for CPE implementers.

The last time I sent this, there was only one response[0] and then the
thread died -- I'd REALLY appreciate clear responses from the WG on
which option (1 or 2) you prefer...

W

[0]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/xVv4f73kB8tRFag3yJCBAraXwXk/


On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:53 AM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05 was on today's telechat, and ran
> into issues.
>
> Alissa (based on the Gen ART review) asked why this was not a BCP, and
> there was general agreement within the IESG that BCP seems like most
> reasonable status.
> There was also discussions on the:
> "Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST",
> [...]  "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as described in [RFC2119]."
> and that this was very confusing.
>
> I proposed that we change the status to BCP, and that the terms be
> used in the normal manner.
>
> I'd like to give the WG 2 weeks to object to this proposal, and, if
> none received, start another IETF LC as BCP.
>
> So, please let me know (by Nov 5th) if you strongly object to this
> becoming a BCP, and the "normal" RFC2119/BCP14 meanings being used for
> the recommendations **in this document**.
>
>
> W
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf



-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra