Wes, thanks for your comments, and sorry for the late reply... Inline...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPSEC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George, Wes
> Sent: 08 January 2014 15:25
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt
>
> I’ve reviewed the latest version, and I have two comments.
> First, while this document has come a long way in avoiding a
> “recommendation” to use LLA-only, I still am concerned at putting this
> forward as a WG draft, as it still serves as implicit IETF endorsement of
> something I still view as a bad idea. It’s the last I’ll say about it and
> I’ll go
> with WG consensus on the matter, but I’d much rather see this as an
> individual draft.
RFC2026#section-4.2.2:
4.2.2 Informational
An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
(see section 4.2.3).
So we clearly don't want to do something that goes against the intuition of
many people, but at least from a formal point of view I cannot see a problem.
We are now in WG last call, so I think we should complete it. But if there is
broad concern, we're also happy to re-submit as an individual draft.
Whichever way we go: This concern has been brought up before, and I'd like to
have a conclusion on this topic, so that we can progress. So, chairs - what do
you suggest?
> Second, you briefly mention some complications with RSVP-TE in your
> caveats section. There is currently a draft we’re hoping to get adopted in the
> MPLS WG (draft-george-mpls-ipv6-only-gap) that analyzes the gaps
> preventing operation of MPLS on an IPv6-only network. We received some
> feedback from Nagendra Kumar pointing out that an additional gap is
> created if one uses LLA-only, but the authors have made the decision to try
> to avoid discussing draft implementations in that gap analysis, or else the
> draft will never be finished. We are instead encouraging draft authors to
> consider IPv6-only operation in their drafts, and to identify existing gaps
> that the draft depends on getting resolved, or making changes to address
> any gaps as appropriate. Therefore, you may want to include some of the
> reviewer’s suggested text in this draft:
> RSVP-TE
> [I-D.ietf-opsec-lla-only] describes the approach of enabling link-
> local addresses alone in transit links. This raises a need for new
> SubObject to carry a combination of RouterID and Link/Interface ID in
> RSVP PATH and RESV message.
>
> Gap: Minor, New SubObject for RSVP message for specific IPv6
> deployment.
We can include this in that section, not a problem. It does add value, as it
describes how the issue can be solved. Thanks for the info!
> If the WG decides to move this -06 version on for IETF LC consideration, this
> is probably something that can be added when the authors are
> incorporating last call comments.
Thanks! Chairs, what is missing in the WG LC? Are we done?
Michael
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
