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

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

I have read the draft and re-read rfc7934 and now I'm completely confused.
First of all, I can not see where rfc7934 says that DHCPv6 is not recommended.

I had to use all my imagination and still not sure how the phrase 'it
is RECOMMENDED that the network
give the host the ability to use new addresses without requiring
explicit requests.' can be read as 'DHCPv6 is not recommended'.

Secondly, the statement 'a host which uses DHCPv6 IA_NA or IA_TA
cannot use new addresses without requesting them from a DHCPv6 server
on the network.' does not seem to be accurate.  As this statement
appears to be the key point of your document, I believe it needs to be
 fixed before we can proceed.

The third point:

"The third paragraph notes that DHCPv6 stateful address assignment
   (IA_NA or IA_TA) can be used to provide multiple addresses when the
   host connects to the network, but does not mention that the host can
   issue multiple dhcpv6 requests, thereby allowing arbitrary numbers of
   assignments rather than the stated limit of approximately 30.  As the
   text in this paragraph is incorrect, it too has been removed.
"
If you believe the text is incorrect (or shall I say 'incomplete'?) as
it does not mention multiple requests,
it would probably make sense to see some suggestions on amending the
text, updating it with details re: multiple requests?

I do not think that the second and third paragraphs should be removed
as they contain clarifications on the recommendations provided in the
first paragraph. Removing them would make the document less clear and
would open the door to misrepresentations instead of preventing them.

Last but not least...The first paragraph of the section 3 sounds a bit
like an overstatement..It's not clear from that text how
recommendations provided in the rfc7934 can have such dramatic impact
on the future of DHCPv6.



On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:47 AM, 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



-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry