Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:58 , STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> 
> To come at this from a procedural angle, then...
> 
> With the advent of the homenet WG, I thought we agreed that we would not make any attempt to address new additional LAN technology recommendations in a 6204bis document. We said 6204bis would only try to deal with WAN-side transition technologies, and other "fix existing 6204 recommendations, because now we know better" changes.
> 
> Recommending PCP as a LAN technology is, IMO, a homenet issue. It has no place in 6204bis.


This reasoning applies just as well to the recommendation of RFC 6092 Simple Security, which is about protecting LAN hosts according to local network policy.

If recommending a PCP server is for HOMENET to do, and it has no place in RFC 6204bis from V6OPS, then recommending RFC 6092 Simple Security neither has any place in RFC 6204bis and it should therefore be removed, and a notice inserted into RFC 6204bis to explain why the previous document was in error and to note that forthcoming documents from HOMENET will address the issue properly.

I would very much like to get a better understanding of how you are reasoning on this issue.


--
j h woodyatt <[e-mail]>