BTW, ok for me of course to go WGLC even without the privacy bit indicator -éric
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim > Chown > Sent: vendredi 12 août 2011 16:22 > To: Arifumi Matsumoto; 6man Mailing List; Brian Haberman > Subject: Moving to WGLC 3484-bis? > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
