Hi,

I support this draft but have a couple of comments.

>    A:   Automatic Row Addition flag.  This flag toggles the Automatic
>         Row Addition flag at client hosts, which is described in the
>         section 2.1 in RFC 6724 [RFC6724].  If this flag is set to 1, it
>         does not change client host behavior, that is, a client MAY
>         automatically add additional site-specific rows to the policy
>         table.  If set to 0, the Automatic Row Addition flag is
>         disabled, and a client MAY NOT automatically add rows to the
>         policy table.

This text includes "MAY NOT" (in upper case). This is specifically not
covered by RFC 2119 because it's unclear. I think we want "MUST NOT"
instead. Or do we want "SHOULD NOT"? The existence of this flag is
a "SHOULD" in RFC 6724.

>    P:   Privacy Preference flag.  This flag toggles the Privacy
>         Preference flag at client hosts, which is described in the
>         section 5 in RFC 6724 [RFC6724].  If this flag is set to 1, it
>         does not change client host behavior, that is, a client SHOULD
>         prefer temporary addresses.  If set to 0, the Privacy Preference
>         flag is disabled, and a client SHOULD prefer public addresses.

I am a little bothered by those two SHOULDs. It seems to me that they subtly
modify what is said in RFC 6724, where the relevant text is quite subtle
already. I would prefer to see the two SHOULD clauses deleted. Alternatively,
s/SHOULD/will/ would better align the text with RFC 6724.

Nit: [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses] is defined but not used.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 10/10/2012 09:28, Ole Trøan wrote:
> All,
> 
> This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing:
> 
>       Title           : Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
>       Author(s)    : A. Matsumoto, T. Fujisaki, T. Chown
>       Filename    : draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-06.txt
>       Pages        : 10
>       Date           : 2012-09-21
> 
>       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-06
> 
> as Proposed Standard.  Substantive comments and statements of support for 
> advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial 
> suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This last call will end on 24. 
> October 2012.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ole Trøan & Bob Hinden
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to