Re: [v6ops] Upleveling discussion (was Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host))

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Tue, 14 November 2017 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 050BD12704A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 bAys2iJMCFvQ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F2F4127076 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id x63so13209294ioe.6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=qanqcKINRZWECWxmdTRTyB3XNJWHa832En8ZtWo76K0=; b=kWfuXq6t9EK9XNQxTMvKznjcDSbzw+2BQxFCA4NwXEnDJN5pNWi8j69wcikYvPB/u8 DOheE78ofao5xbfq54veFMr5M4JlnnoAMIWLLEZ4Jdt+VQscB93TwgfJyii8Jo61agIu MYw9MlnTDb0GncEXIo6TCsOvMsadZty8PF9nVMn5MpOpqD4r56vnsvxNVI8gM9ODZKR/ XLOxogQj8FLBFy5cAvc2LJ2Y+36ai/+If6Ugvr76zMutUZ7DnLwGkzDM1S1X+j/moNEM tl8RB4RURe5k8B8e6KRBrQfR5+/4fujc7/ISSuCvZ4PjQMqYg5nbxFKCk36hPskNyYud oxWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=qanqcKINRZWECWxmdTRTyB3XNJWHa832En8ZtWo76K0=; b=e0jVmqh/QGQip1zcJMQLNpNMf5zXAMct7aRH+CPNOk+jiITjfd+zn458SnF2M5oYTG frBpZ944uGK0zgS0K9ZmQhnPARbgc5At33keoShkruBtUVEq1FM9TDjl83hrXDN8j0Mk xLsEOZe98WcYxZo34BhWAaiYHgk0SEw8/RaAkz4Edec2ddkhHwVZmoluEAEX0a+ISBiP XkBBLPq/7cgZs74rKbTF4pIeVRbPrc+5/lHD3oLEe4d/WUrTZSuvN0ioPK64ja8duetq 5RHugROpSzXWZ3S8N+8bb93S7WxXVP/E6eaUSeRqXt9A7X234CEsuFz4COT5Q9W/hQWO FTKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7ckAcvaFpXcxUqxLtKa0jw1SiM2pcNNXkyOCQpIENhORFQl0Mz MjCn36YWB0QKWNN4/Wa/WFiNdg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZ/J8wZJqPp9e/tFrH8L4yvIxwoGMHnF9Hch6cbRZzNTnpAyM9n/pJIg2l+EvomW0FTOEXE3g==
X-Received: by 10.107.30.81 with SMTP id e78mr15196346ioe.65.1510684125027; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-229-233.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.229.233]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w139sm5714819itb.5.2017.11.14.10.28.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:44 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <E78E2BB1-1FD1-490F-9CF7-DE0D6CB46703@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FBA5FFEC-9C5F-458C-A69C-BBE275B82F90"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:28:43 -0800
In-Reply-To: <F762F88F-ABCE-4B91-BA75-66D464420AEE@gmail.com>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d154133-a1de-7774-1589-c7069bf279ee@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org> <862687c9-c107-53a8-288a-29049097b0e1@acm.org> <AM5PR0701MB2836C00EA1AAC73E7E63F583E02B0@AM5PR0701MB2836.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2xacRco7ne7biQ93so0k-x4xSnM2jzoB13-sdVRLshQDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0Zz6Jxg_ZuEbBkMhBdEaZKOrtx-eUns7KWi9v-5PDBzg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xqwRH94dw=XJf5mt3STdDcTYmB_i1NbXP46shdJQeaPA@mail.gmail.com> <E7F9E3EF-B5AA-4698-8BBC-772228129277@fugue.com> <AM5PR0701MB2836DB6E4A3E3F8FC6CA5FE0E0280@AM5PR0701MB2836.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <F762F88F-ABCE-4B91-BA75-66D464420AEE@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yLmkYJirfESkj8RWLcyFZQNoXBs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Upleveling discussion (was Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host))
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:28:48 -0000

On Nov 13, 2017, at 19:22, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> c) The document should be Informational and not BCP
> 
> Regardless of people claiming on this thread that the IESG chose this to be a BCP, it is the *v6ops WG* that decided to send this in as BCP. The document was IETF Last Called as BCP way before it even hit the IESG. Given that there is no objective guidance in RFC2026 on what constitutes a BCP (“best” and "what is believed to be the best way” are not exactly objective) we could go either way. I am inclined to go along with the wishes of the WG (v6ops), the shepherding AD (Warren) in the absence of a more definitive measure of suitability. That said, as I conveyed to Warren, I would not object if this was made Informational either.

In light of its other deficiencies that I’ve previously complained about (lack of clarity about some significant contingencies, e.g., reclaiming prefixes, ND redirects, et cetera), I’d be marginally happier with Informational rather than Best Current Practice.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>