Thanks Joel. We are OK letting the IESG decide, as such our request for BCP will remain for now. If they decide Informational we will accept this as well.
John +1-484-962-0060 -----Original Message----- From: Joel Halpern <[email protected]> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 20:31 To: John Brzozowski <[email protected]>, 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 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
