[conex] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-conex-destopt-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 30 September 2015 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A1D1A702A; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G5HHTZUcWvNM; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551581A7015; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150930130930.15603.87942.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:09:30 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/CGMtaVxPqCUNU-FMoS8tPVRmK3M>
Cc: draft-ietf-conex-destopt.ad@ietf.org, conex-chairs@ietf.org, conex@ietf.org, draft-ietf-conex-destopt@ietf.org
Subject: [conex] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-conex-destopt-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/conex/>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:09:31 -0000

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-conex-destopt-09: 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:


I support the publication of this document given the need for
experimentation in this area. However, there is one point that I would
like to discuss...

Section 3 contains R-1 which says that this marking "needs to be visible
to all ConEx-capable nodes on the path." Additionally, Section 5 says
that the choice of using an IPv6 Destination Option precludes
non-ConEx-capable devices from having to deal with the extension header.
However, RFC 2460 clearly says that Destination Options are not inspected
by intermediate devices. We all know that a variety of intermediate
devices ignore the rule in 2460.  Given that, I would like this document
to explicitly state that it does not abide by the rule in 2460 so that
implementations that do follow 2460 but want to support this approach
know to update all their extension header processing code.


* Why does the word "foo" appear in the middle of Section 4?

* Do you want the Option Type description in Section 4 to have a value =
TBD construct so that the IANA-assigned value can be inserted?