Hi Tim, On 8/12/11 10:21 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > 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.
I agree with your assessment and this approach as a reasonable way forward. Go ahead and generate -05 with 3ffe::/16 back in the table. When that draft is out, I will start a WG Last Call and specifically request feedback on the privacy bit issue. Regards, Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
