[v6ops] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-07: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Peter Yee for the GENART review.

** Section 13.

   Networks that use the proposed mechanism instead of SLAAC or in
   addition to SLAAC, SHOULD minimally:

...

   *  Use short prefix lifetimes, to ensure that when a client
      disconnects and reconnects it gets a different prefix.

Is there any guidance to provide on what constitutes a “short lifetime”?

** Section 13.
   To provide privacy roughly equivalent to SLAAC with temporary
   addresses ([RFC8981]), the network SHOULD ...

I’m having trouble understanding this guidance.  What should be done to provide
SLAAC-privacy-equivalence if this guidance isn’t followed?  There are multiple
SHOULDs in this paragraph.  Wouldn’t it be mandatory to follow them to provide
SLAAC-privacy-equivalence?