John, I absolutely agree that this document describes behavior that is
useful. And it describes that behavior clearly.
One could, on that basis argue for PS status.
I think it better fits as informational.
I do not think it needs to be marked experimental.
I do think it should be published.
There are at least 3 definitions of BCP floating around out there.
One clearly does not apply (this is not documenting a widely practiced
current usage as far as I know.) I understand that BCPs are not
restricted to that.
Another definition is a generally recommended behavior (even if folks do
not actually do it, cf BCP 38). I do not think that definition applies
to this document.
The third, and only enforced definition, is "what the IESG says is a
BCP." Not a very helpful definition, but it is the actual one in use.
Which is why I ended my note by saying that I leave it to the IESG.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/8/17 8:04 PM, Brzozowski, John wrote:
Joel,
Please send the criteria for BCP v Informational so we can all evaluate
accordingly.
The document describes the *behavior* that is expected by UEs based on the
network configuration. This was deliberate, not accidental or assumed. I am
not sure there is anything to disagree about, data pertaining to device
behavior is clear and well known.
John
+1-484-962-0060
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:57
To: Ronald Bonica <[email protected]>, Brian Carpenter <[email protected]>, Gunter Van de Velde
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
Resent-From: <[email protected]>
Resent-To: <[email protected]>, Gunter Van de Velde <[email protected]>, Ronald Bonica
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]>
Resent-Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:57
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
