Re: [v6ops] AD Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 12 August 2020 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AD23A12EC; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.303
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.303 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A3GiJh7bz-Ke; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D08C13A12EA; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:2050:70d7:6aa2:63d2] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:2050:70d7:6aa2:63d2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B5CD283A1F; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:36:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum.all@ietf.org, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <CAHw9_i+Cq2vcf569Yk2j=+BMW6MwVQPLZ6bJ4LXGDD44Reipnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9b68178a-a32a-0467-6685-34e1d97258dd@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:10:09 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_i+Cq2vcf569Yk2j=+BMW6MwVQPLZ6bJ4LXGDD44Reipnw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rUF-V8BXd1MM2Fx3tQ5eq6EC_88>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] AD Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:37:00 -0000

Hello, Warren,

Thanks a lot for your review! In-line....

On 10/8/20 14:17, Warren Kumari wrote:
[....]
> 
> Questions / comments:
> 1: "In scenarios where the CPE router crashes and reboots, the CPE may
> be leased (via DHCPv6-PD) a different prefix from the one previously
> leased, and therefore advertise (via SLAAC) the new prefix on the LAN
> side."
> I understand what this sentence is trying to say, but it took a few
> readings - I kept reading it that the CPE device itself may be leased,
> and then getting confused. I'm not quite sure how  to fix it, but
> does:
> "In scenarios where the CPE router crashes and reboots, the CPE may be
> obtain (via DHCPv6-PD) a different prefix from the one previously
> leased, and therefore advertise (via SLAAC) the new prefix on the LAN
> side." work?

Yes (modulo s/may be obtain/may obtain/)



> 2: "If such a push results in changing the /64 subnet configured on a
> particular network..." - I suggest dropping the "/64" - it doesn't add
> anything to the sentence is is likely to just attract controversy /
> questions.

Good point. Will do.


[I've removed grammatical issues where no further comments on my side 
were needed -- and where I will simply apply your suggested changes]

> O: If such a push results in changing the /64 subnet configured on a
> particular network, hosts attached to that network would not get
> notified about the subnet change and their addresses from the "old"
> prefix will not deprecated.
> P: If such a push results in changing the /64 subnet configured on a
> particular network, hosts attached to that network would not get
> notified about the subnet change and their addresses from the "old"
> prefix will not be deprecated.
> C: Missing "be"

Should we also remove the "/64" here?  (since you suggested that for a 
different paragraph)



> Section 2:
> O: As noted in Section 1, the problem discussed in this document
> exacerbated by a number of different parameters and behaviours.
> P: As noted in Section 1, the problem*s* discussed in this document
> are exacerbated by a number of different parameters and behaviours.
> C: I don't really like "parameters" here - perhaps "default
> parameters" or just drop it?

One option is to fix it as "... by the default values of some protocol 
parameters and other factors"?

Thanks a lot for the feedback! I will rev the doc asap.

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492