Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum **Call for Adoption**

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 21-Feb-20 01:54, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 
>> Point taken. How about:
>> 'Any prefixes that were previously advertised via PIOs in Router 
>> Advertisement (RA) messages, and that have become stale, should be advertised 
>> with a PIOs that have both the "Valid Lifetime" and the "Preferred Lifetime" 
>> set to 0, and the A/L flags with the same settings as in the previous RA 
>> messages'
>>
>>
>> Not sure if "with the same settings" is clear enough, though.
> 
> "unchanged"?
> 
>> Agreed. Although L-13 of RFC7084 makes the reader assume what the proper 
>> settings for the flags are.

And A=L=0 is valid sometimes too (RFC8028). Better to avoid the details here.

    Brian

> 
> The longer I participate in the IETF, the more I adopt the opinion that 
> documents should not be overly prescriptive.
> 
> Is there some text on *why* we're doing this? Perhaps that's better 
> instead of writing exactly what the flags should be etc?
> 
> Perhaps write that Valid/Preferred lifetime should become zero so that new 
> client connections are not sourced from these IPs? Isn't the most 
> important thing that the Preferred lifetime is this way? Perhaps write 
> "SHOULD NOT change any other flags in the PIO"?
> 
> L-13 also has text regarding 2 hour and "whatever is lower". I seem to 
> remember this was because some other RFC said something about 2 hour 
> minimum... is this still true?
>