Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-07: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:07:56AM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hello, Ben,
> 
> On 25/2/21 23:20, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 05:27:36PM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
> >> Hello, Ben,
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot for our comments! In-line....
> >>
> >> On 23/2/21 19:13, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
> >> [....]
> >>> Section 3
> [...]
> > 
> > The thread has continued and I think has gotten into enough details that I
> > don't know much about that my insight will not be very valuable.  About the
> > only contribution I might make is that a construction of the form "MUST by
> > default behave such that [list of things] or behave according to RFC 7844"
> > might be a little easier to read, since it's a choice rather than a primary
> > behavior and exception.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> I'd suggest something like:
> 
>       o  WPD-10: CE Routers MUST by default use a WAN-side IAID
>          value that is stable between CE Router
>          restarts, DHCPv6 client restarts, or interface state changes
>          (e.g., Transient PPP interfaces), or behave according to
>          [RFC7844].  See Section 3.2 for further details.
> 
> My only concern here is that, in a way, this reads a bit like "pick any 
> of these two behaviors", whereas what we want is something more along 
> the lines of "it MUST do this, unless you implement the anonymity 
> profiles. (i.e., if you pick the RFC7844, it should be because you do 
> mean the CE Router to implement the anonymity profiles).
> 
> 
> 
> So an alternative could be:
> 
>       o  WPD-10: CE Routers MUST by default use a WAN-side IAID
>          value that is stable between CE Router
>          restarts, DHCPv6 client restarts, or interface state changes
>          (e.g., Transient PPP interfaces), unless the CE Router
>          employs [RFC7844] for the WAN-side.  See Section 3.2 for
>          further details.
> 
> (might spell out the title of RFC7844, too....)
> 
> Thoughts? Suggestions?

Those both look good to me, so I expect you'll go with your preference (the
latter).

Thanks,

Ben