Subject: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:20:09 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- On my first reading, I wondered why this was informational. It seems to seek
to standardize protocol elements. The explanation in the shepherd report
clarifies that; it would be helpful to include (a perhaps shortened version of)
that in the draft.

-2: RFC 8174 has boilerplate to address the "only in upper case" part. Please
consider using it rather than modifying the 2119 boilerplate.

-4.4: "It is therefore important to record all the prefix assignment history."
Isn’t this a local policy choice? Perhaps some operator believes in extreme log
minimization, does this mean to argue they are mistaken?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:42:11 +1300

On 14/12/2017 17:20, Ben Campbell wrote:
...> - On my first reading, I wondered why this was informational. It seems to seek
> clarifies that; it would be helpful to include (a perhaps shortened version of)

Awaiting instructions, but we can certainly do that if there's to be
a new version of the draft.

> consider using it rather than modifying the 2119 boilerplate.

Ack, the RFC Editor could do that too.

> minimization, does this mean to argue they are mistaken?

I'd say it is a requirement in order to detect or trace lost prefixes
after outages, and probably a legal requirement in many countries
(once jurisdictions realise that IPv6 prefixes are needed for tracing,
not just addresses). But I agree that it isn't a requirement on the
protocol defined in this draft, so it should be rephrased.

Thanks
    Brian

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:15:52 -0600

Just to close the loop: All of Brian’s responses look fine to me.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Dec 14, 2017, at 12:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>