Re: Situation with draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03.txt

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

On Nov 17, 2004, at 6:22 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Alain wanted to raise the issue on what's up with 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03.txt.

Thank you for starting this thread. Please note that there is also a 
companion draft,
draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-02.txt that provides that rationale 
for the change in
RFC2461 about on-link assumption. What should we do about this draft?
	- publish it as Info RFC to document the rationale for the change in 
the update of RFC2461?
	- same thing, but publish it simultaneously as 2461bis?
	- let it expire has it has served its purpose.

> At the IESG evaluation, two people raised a particular significant 
> concern: the document should not be discussing solutions to these 
> problems, if the solution has not been advanced in the appropriate WGs 
> or other fora.  (It would be OK to just write about the problems, 
> however.)
>
> These seem to be two ways forward here:
>
>  1) make sure work on the solutions is moving forward in the 
> appropriate WGs, etc., and wait until publishing this document, with 
> mentioning the solutions.  Drawback is that it may take long time to 
> get these merged in the specification efforts.
>
>  2) remove all the references to solutions in this document (I believe 
> most of this was already done in -03 revision).

Yes, -03 has removed any references to solutions.

> For what it's worth, the status wrt solutions is as follows:
> [...]

There is another aspect, which is what to publish in the DNS, and this 
is where there is
overlap with the draft in DNSop "don't publish unreachable". 
Essentially, publishing IPv6 addresses
in the global DNS when one does not have global IPv6 connectivity is no 
different than
publishing IPv4 RFC1918 type addresses...

About default address, there is an issue for apps that are using UDP 
and are (miss?)configured
with an unreachable literal IPv6 address. This is typically the case 
for a DNS stub-resolver
that is configured with a list of literal addresses. We had to 
introduce an extra rule
to take care of that.

If you are confident that progress can be made quickly on all those 
fronts, it may be worth
holding back the publication of the draft until resolution of those 
issues, however, i have to admit that
I'm a bit pessimistic...

	- Alain.