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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm not attempting to determine consensus, simply expressing an opinion
> that there was substantial opposition to the principals behind a
> sentence that was inserted into the draft, i.e. querying whether that
> consensus existed to start with.  There isn't a problem with querying a
> decision.
>

There was opposition on an earlier revision, but then the text was amended.
I think it's fair to say that anyone wanting to continue to object had the
opportunity to do so.

The difficulty with formally appealing the consensus call is that the
> change was inserted into the document in Feb 2016,


There was no substantive change in this area since -01 was published in
September 2015. The recommendation that if a network requires DHCPv6 it
should use DHCPv6 PD to hand out a /64 has been in the draft since then.

As an aside, the fact that there is a good deal of disagreement on its
> interpretation today makes it clear that that this sentence is open to
> vastly different interpretations.
>

I think a lot of the disagreement on interpretation is due to the fact that
some in the discussion (including myself) have inappropriately
characterized the RFC as recommending against the *use of DHCPv6 in
general*. It doesn't  - it recommends against *requiring* the use of IA_NA
/ IA_TA in order to use IPv6 on a particular network. I think the confusion
is limited to this thread though; then RFC itself is pretty clear.