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

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

See comments below (BV>).

- Bernie (from iPad)

> On Jan 27, 2021, at 5:53 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Ben,
> 
> On 27/1/21 18:21, Fernando Gont wrote:
> [....]
>>>        *  In Replies to DHCPv6 Request, Renew, Rebind messages, send 0
>>>           lifetimes for any address assignments or prefix delegations for
>>>           the deprecated prefixes for at least the valid-lifetime
>>>           previously employed for them, or for a period of ND_VALID_LIMIT
>>>           if the recommended lifetimes from Section 3.2 are employed.
>>> 
>>> Is it deliberate to say nothing at all about Advertise messages (which
>>> are sent in response to Solicit messages, not any of the listed ones)?
>> I will double-check this one with my co-authors.
> 
> Our plan is to add this note to the RATIONALE of Section 3.3:
> 
>   The above text does not include responses to DHCPv6 Solicit messages,
BV> A Solicit with Rapid Commit may return a Reply. So this only applies to Advertise responses.
>   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 Solicit messages will trigger the response specified in
BV> There are usually no “subsequent” Solicits. There is a subsequent Request.
>   this section, and therefore cause the address or prefix to be
>   deprecated.
> 
> Would this address your comment?
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
>