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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

The RFC doesn't say that anywhere in it.   There is no version of the draft
that was published on 2/12/2016.   The -01 version of the draft was
published in March of that year; the final version in July.   Can you
please point out the place in the text where it says what you are saying it
says?

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00 has just been posted as an ID.
>
> It has recently been claimed that IETF best current practice is that
> DHCPv6 is not recommended due to the recommendations section in
> RFC7934/BCP204.
>
> The relevant text was slipped into
> draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05 on Feb 12, 2016, a couple of
> days before the document went into IETF LC.  There was no discussion
> about this text change either in the v6ops working group or at IETF
> review or IESG level: perhaps the modification appeared innocuous or
> maybe it just wasn't not noticed.
>
> Next thing, there's a BCP which is being interpreted as meaning that
> DHCPv6 is NOT RECOMMENDED for operational use.  Wow. :-)
>
> This presents a variety of problems, the most serious of which are 1)
> that a BCP is implying that the use of DHCPv6 was "NOT RECOMMENDED"
> without extensive discussion or debate about this particular issue at
> the relevant working group, and ignores the both the widespread use of
> the protocol and its active development at the ietf, and 2) that a
> change in the status of DHCPv6 to "NOT RECOMMENDED" leaves a huge hole
> in the IPv6 host specification.
>
> Job and I believe that this went through by mistake and that if the WG
> had noticed the change at the time, consensus would never have been
> reached on what is a serious semantic change to IETF lore.
>
> Right now, the most prudent course of action would be to roll back the
> change until a proper debate has been had.  We invite WG comments on
> this doc.
>
> Nick
>
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > A new version of I-D, draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Nick Hilliard and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> >
> > Name:         draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update
> > Revision:     00
> > Title:                Update for IPv6 Host Address Availability
> Recommendations
> > Document date:        2017-07-17
> > Group:                Individual Submission
> > Pages:                4
> > URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-
> drafts/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
> > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update/
> > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-
> addr-update-00
> > Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/html/draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    The IPv6 Host Address Availability Recommendations Best Current
> >    Practice (RFC 7934), describes why IPv6 hosts should use multiple
> >    global addresses when attaching to a network.  This document updates
> >    RFC 7934 by removing a recommendation for networks to give the host
> >    the ability to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>