[dhcwg] Re: IA_PD advice about receiving link

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sat, 05 Jul 2025 16:06:42 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.dhc
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Bernie Volz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > 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?

I think that the original text referred to advertising the prefix (via RA) on
the link on which the prefix was received.   I'm not clear why the errata
wanted to remove that; I didn't actually look up the errata text itself....
well, I don't see it at:
      https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3633

    > It seems to me that the errata removed that text?

yes, we removed because some errata told us to when we merged 3633 into what
became RFC8415.

Note that none of this text speaks about whether or not a DHCPv6-PD client
can/should configure an address on the link on which it received the delegate.
It was about RAs for other nodes, I think.

    > 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.

I think we should leave things as they are.

--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

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

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 515 B)