Actually Jim, it is an open mailing list and they
hold open Area meetings, so I don't see your concern.
The point isn't overruling. It's that when an IPv6 document
covers IPv4 topics, then the wider perspective is relevant.
But more to the point - a number of specific technical
issues have been raised and need to be answered.
Brian
Bound, Jim wrote:
I also do not support the idea or process of an area ad hoc mail list
overruling a working group or chairs support of a document at all. We
already have far to much process and missing time to market from within
the IETF with industry. This is highly questionable behavior as even a
thought.
/jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Bound, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:48 AM
To: 'Brian E Carpenter'; Pekka Savola
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Int-area] concerns about draft-ietf-ipv6-ndproxy-03.txt
I support nd proxy it should be PS. It should not go to DS
without wide implementation from multiple members I do not
believe it is under specified either. Would I recommend it
on a production network, not at all. What some may be
uncomfortable with if they are not implementers is the
complexity for net centric implementation capabability. The
idea has been implemented in many forms and has nothing to do
with ARP or ND, they are simply the vehicle to permit the
deployment model of partitioned links. This team did its job
and checked with multiple domain experts across the IETF my
input is to move on.
/jim
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:47 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] concerns about
draft-ietf-ipv6-ndproxy-03.txt
People might want to look in the tracker at the other comments
that have come up.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie
w_id&dTag=12623&rfc_flag=0
Brian
Pekka Savola wrote:
(FWIW, I think ND proxies are useful and needed.) Some comments
inline. Adding ipv6 WG.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
1) I do not believe the material on IPv4 ARP proxy should be
included. It is not in-scope for the IPv6 WG to be
developing it, and
any document on proxy ARP in IPv4 really requires review from the
broader community. AFAIK, that review has not taken place.
Recommendation: remove the IPv4 material and place in a separate
document
v4 part is said to reflect what one implementation does,
but I guess
even for Informational, that info might be too much. I
guess it could
be taken out of fleshed out in a separate spec (if anyone
is interested
in documenting proxy-arp behaviour..)
2) This document breaks SEND (but does not say this
clearly). I have
doubts that we should be publishing documents that break
our standards
track protocols (especially ones that we believe are
important). Or at
the very least, if it is published, very strong wording is
needed to
point out that it is incompatable with SEND, e.g., an IESG note.
Wording could be enhanced, but I do not think this document
should be
blocked by the missing SEND details.
3) this document may have implications for DHC. In particular,
document says:
This is moot if v4 parts are removed.
4) The history of this document is troubling, and I
believe it does
not have strong support from the WG. Rather, I'd
characterize this as
an effort that has gotten this far mostly because the vast
majority of
the WG has tuned out and no longer is following the work.
The history of this effort (though I may be biased) is
that the IPv6
WG desired a simple proxy mechanism for the following
case. Suppose
one has an access router connecting to an upstream ISP,
and that link
is assigned a prefix (say X). It would be nice if the
access router
could readvertise that prefix (say for a home network),
acting as a
simple bridge.
...
But it's scope is quite a lot broader than what
the charter called for.
I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Are you saying
the ND proxy
spec is too complicated?
Well, I myself suggested removing the spanning tree loop
prevention from
the draft completely (now it has a bit in the RAs) because
it wasn't
needed in the applicability we had in mind. But folks that
didn't like
ND proxy argued that infinite loops are not nice, even in illegal
configurations, so we're stuck with some additional specification.
How would you like to see it simplified? Do you have an
alternative in
mind?
(To me, ND proxies seems "as simple as it can get" excluding loop
prevention which I argued for removal but folks thought
the failure
modes were too dangerous..)
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
