Hi guys, I think we're almost ready to WGLC the 3484-bis draft, as per draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-04.
We had 3 issues in Quebec: 1) Inclusion of deprecated prefixes. It seemed the agreement in the room was to include compatibles, site-locals and 6bone prefixes in the policy table. If that's what we do, then we need to add 3ffe::/16 back in. 2) Privacy bit indicator. We had removed the privacy bit indicator after the heavy negative feedback in Prague to a privacy bit option for RAs, but Eric Vyncke suggested it should be added back so that an enterprise administrator could use the DHCPv6 policy distribution method to have hosts in their domain not use privacy addresses for talking to other hosts in their domain (same prefix, or ULAs). At the moment, there is no privacy bit support. 3) Prefer greatest lifetime. We agreed to make no change here. If we agree to add back 3ffe::/16, we could quickly produce a revise-05 and WGLC based on that, and ask in the WGLC whether there's strong support for the privacy option. If there is, then the option bit itself would be defined in the DHCPv6 policy distribution text, and 3484-bis would need to describe the use of the bit in the updated policy table. Sound reasonable, or would a different approach be better? Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
