I do not think Brian's proposal addresses the issue.
Either this is indeed a Best / Recommended Current Practice, or it isn't.
All RFCs are optional. So saying that this is optional does not seem to
help.
It seems very odd to defend the status on the basis that it was part of
a compromise.
To me, the document still reads like a conventional informational RFC.
To make it a BCP, in my view, it would have to describe the context in
which this was actually a recommended behavio. I doubt we actually have
agreement on that.
As far as I can tell, we do have agreement on this description of how to
do this when you want to. Which is what Informational RFCs are for.
In the end, this is up to the IESG.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/8/17 10:28 AM, Ron Bonica wrote:
Joel,
Are you OK with the change that Brian recommends, below?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Bonica
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 8:36 PM
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <[email protected]>; Van De Velde,
Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>; draft-
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
Wfm
Joel, are you ok with this?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 4:06 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia -
BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-v6ops-
unique-
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
s/The Best Current Practice documented in this note is/The optional
Best Current Practice documented in this note is/
Regards
Brian
On 06/05/2017 02:58, Ron Bonica wrote:
Gunter,
Thanks much. A brief chat with Joel may clear this up.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:47 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>;
draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
Hi Ron, Gen-art directorate,
I’m checking with John on the most optimal way forward. While I am
not that keen on the BCP status of the document, it was part of a
motivation to split up the original draft on the subject discussing
community wifi networks from the address related aspects. John and
I will have a discussion on the subject and propose a path to
resolution of
the issue mentioned by gen-art.
G/
On 04/05/2017, 21:57, "Ron Bonica" <[email protected]> wrote:
Folks,
The following is status for draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-
host:
- WG last call complete
- OPSDIR, GENART and INTDIR reviews complete
- write-up complete
The following issue was raised in the GENART Review:
" The proposed status seems questionable. We as a community
are not recommending that operators assign unique prefixes to hosts.
This document is saying "if you want to do that, here is a way,
using existing tools, to make that work." The document also
recommends specific setting of other flags (the O flag in the RA,
for example) that are not closely coupled to the particular topic.
This looks like an ordinary Informational RFC. I would have no
concern with this
being published with that label."
Could the authors please address this issues. As soon as they
have done so, we can send it to the IESG for publication.
Ron
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
