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

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

The reference to RFC 6092 is in RFC 6204, which was published prior to homenet's creation.

Unless the reference to 6092 is truly an error, then we don't need to be discussing changes to its recommendation (removal, updates, enhancements) in 6204bis. It continues as it was. 6204bis has tried to leave LAN elements of 6204 untouched. They were fully and appropriately discussed with consensus agreement to include them, at the time of 6204. And so they remain, unless there is a problem.

If you believe that inclusion of 6092 as a "SHOULD" is truly an error, then I would like to understand why you think that. If there exists proof that it's harmful (I've heard some people say that having it enabled by default has caused some problems, so perhaps there is such proof), then maybe we should reconsider its inclusion. If you're suggesting its removal because the topic is no longer under the charter of v6ops, then I disagree. We didn't say that we wanted to pull out LAN elements when doing 6204bis. We said we didn't want to do anything with them, at all (unless they have proven to be a true mistake). Removing the reference to 6092 would be inconsistent with an attempt to make no "LAN functionality" changes to 6204, when creating 6204bis. I would only support it if it were shown to be truly harmful.

Barbara

From: james woodyatt [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:17 PM
To: STARK, BARBARA H
Cc: PCP; IPv6 Operations; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>