Re: [v6ops] Clarification/addition on the cpe-slaac doc.

My view is that it's worth directing the implementer's attention to, and
highlighting the importance of the clause in the context of non-fixed PDs.
People do miss things, or may not understand the impact, as obvious as it
may seem to us.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 15:38, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> It seems odd to me to be cherry picking things for RFC-8415 to reiterate
> as requirements?
>
>
>
> Doesn’t that open up the possibility that someone skips other things
> because “well it wasn’t in the CPE-SLAAC” requirements?
>
>
>
>    - Bernie
>
>
>
> *From:* v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Warren Kumari
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:09 AM
> *To:* Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
> *Cc:* IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] Clarification/addition on the cpe-slaac doc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:05 AM <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>
> > During the final editing of cpe-slaac, the authors noticed that we
> should have included:
> > “WPD-10: CE routers SHOULD, by default, attempt to use a stable IAID
> value that does not change between CE restarts, DHCPv6 client restarts, or
> interface state changes. e.g., Transient PPP interfaces.”
> >
> > To me this seems like an obvious and non-contentious clarification (it's
> already required in RFC8145), and so I'm asking the authors to include it
> while addressing the other IESG comments/ballots.
>
> I think you mean 8415, but at least all the digits are there.
>
>
>
> I did indeed :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> I support the change, but I do think it should be strengthened.
> An "unintended" change in IAID has dire consequences for the end-user
> network.
>
> "WPD-10: CE routers MUST by default use a stable IAID value that does not
> change between CE restarts, DHCPv6 client restarts, or interface state
> changes. e.g., Transient PPP interfaces."
>
> 8415 has: "For any given use of an IA by the client, the IAID for that IA
> MUST be consistent across restarts of the DHCP client."...
>
>
>
> Fair enough. That's better, and the new proposed text; I actually intended
> to copy and paste the RFC 8415 (see, I *can* type :-)) but forgot....
>
> Thanks!
>
> W
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ole
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
> complexities of his own making.
>   -- E. W. Dijkstra
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>