Subject: [core] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:06:04 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-25: Discuss

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-core-resource-directory/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[ discuss ]]

[ section 4.1.1 ]

* Did this get presented to 6man at any point, either via mail to the list or
  chair or in a presentation slot at an IETF meeting or a 6man interim?

  I feel confident that there would be no objection to the option as described
  here, but the working group should have its chance to make an evaluation
  irrespective of my opinion.

  ---

  If this is to be used when link-local methods don't work, another option
  would have been to add an RD PVD API key and recommend including a PVD
  option.

[ section 4.1.1 & 9.2 ]

* Please clarify which ND messages can carry an RDAO.  I suspect they should
  only appear in RAs, but it would be good to state the expectation explicitly.

[ Appendix A. ]

* Can you explain the ff35:30:2001:db8:1 construction?  RFC 3306 section 4
  defines some fine-grained structure, and I'm wondering how a group ID of 1
  is selected/computed/well known.  If there is already a COAP document
  describing this vis. RFC 3307 section 4.*, perhaps it's worth dropping a
  reference in here.

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

[[ comments ]]

[ section 1 ]

* I'm unclear on what "disperse networks" might mean.

[ section 10.1.1 ]

* What is meant by "therefore SLAAC addresses are assigned..." followed by this
  table of not-very-random-looking IPv6 addresses?

  Is the assumption that there might not be some off-network DNS server but
  there is some RA with a /64 A=1 PIO?