[dhcwg] Re: IA_PD advice about receiving link

Thanks for digging into this. In the back of my mind, I had a feeling that this restriction was relaxed at some point and it seems that was done by that Errata. And, if all else failed, was going to reach out to Ole, but now not necessary.

Michael, I’m not exactly sure if you feel we should have left that text in but changed MUST NOT to SHOULD NOT or something else - instead of removing it?

It seems to me that the errata removed that text?

Did you want to add that new paragraph from the errata? But I think it is unnecessary as that is what a lease is really about - transferring “authority”.

I’m happy to leave things as they are and close the question with your details as it answers why it was removed.

Thanks for your research!

- Bernie

> On Jul 4, 2025, at 10:46 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> I tried again with gitk (because procrastinating something else).
> 
> https://github.com/dhcwg/rfc3315bis/commit/29cf014eeff79b2becff41b0703ea290896de6ba
> 
>>   …, with the following exception: the requesting router MUST
>>   NOT assign any delegated prefixes or subnets from the delegated
>>   prefix(es) to the link through which it received the DHCP message
>>   from the delegating router.
> 
>    I agree with you, that taking that errata to heart, there shouldn't be
>    text stating that the "client MUSt NOT".
> 
> There are some other hits for "the requesting router", but only this one
> seemed relevant.  I think that this edit is where the text in question went
> away.... yes:
> 
>                 <t hangText="-">For each delegated prefix, the client assigns a
>                 subnet to each of the links to which the associated interfaces are
> -                attached, with the following exception: the client MUST
> -                NOT advertise any delegated prefixes or subnets from the delegated
> -                prefix(es) to the link through which it received the DHCP message
> -                from the server (see <xref target="RFC6603"/> for exceptions).
> +                attached.
> 
> and the committer is this "bevolz" guy.
> It seems in the commit message attached to this, that maybe the edit didn't
> do what Bernie actually wanted.  Maybe too much text was removed?
> It also seems that "advertise" here referred to RAs, and wasn't about
> numbering that link itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <signature.asc>

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]