Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 17 February 2017 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C2C129B47 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:34:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WYECK5mP7uDe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x244.google.com (mail-pf0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C612B129B48 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id o64so4673905pfb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:34:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T9999rVH/hv3mdj23EYbrA7ACzDWl5pdLgLaRRw3EDI=; b=QpxzT3VPwLNBsd3JQy5F5+9DQK1EXUThR7bG5AsQjPMAWI3wbskcaT22xOB/R2QQgg 36mbrvTB2ad6LSQ0RP8uAiEGj28TM2H5c5o2UGqnFUrZVcwtV0+PGRV5kjaCFTxZ9fyB 1NJN+zvKYYzI1pUnMPqrcAZr5K1qqsrSWmtZn0hhUmsi2lDCdIuktoybw/VkKPOHiMFD OPbYxQWki0vda9ZSkPuQzlbhu5U9pAW7mYjhgCAC74IeGNrN3hAcVVpfbWBcKQiUsYS/ UBpSravzQ76Wpw831ReKaue2jq1oAeWy64HhSs2mkQWB7H+LNAZD2atsEtMmqAjYlYl0 wxRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=T9999rVH/hv3mdj23EYbrA7ACzDWl5pdLgLaRRw3EDI=; b=SCkcXT3rgIbYJ8sW5DsSO7Ul+7xOhAGkkUXLx0RU/SB7lUwqenFsN5eRZlPc2zz9rC qYGlZZaMXZBtOGYplHuos+OIyVmvD49dRVwvEzpcPMsGKlZPcDCs6XUWsnmKblX+90eM TG1xz9IF7Px1BbpKpg/IbODZmyb8EVSsUR1iEhSybaqiir2jKCU1b7K9uX6W9NU0o2BO EMFXZEWlSLUGfyrMFJXT/JUVBnMBZs0fdBog/3EhiGL/RaIMOI8q0WmapIR099nwE0KY Kw6s0aqerySyNkMXxAS0pZKKBnn+5J4M7GdV1bucP/orSI0WbVzGM98ZpaC3FEF9Elga EGwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nfpTKpBO+olNz+zWWghPbo8cl0hUwZdQSGoZpZOrHlSy+SJRK4ZHyoC+xPDwka1w==
X-Received: by 10.84.194.165 with SMTP id h34mr13363355pld.70.1487360067428; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5b5c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5b5c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y6sm21299941pgc.1.2017.02.17.11.34.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, otroan@employees.org, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2poippisc.wl-randy@psg.com> <13830253-67ab-cb26-4fa0-f40a24f1a5bc@gmail.com> <76D87C97-1ECB-4E92-8FE7-ADAF464DB8FD@employees.org> <a0aaa86f-db08-4363-f9c6-0b55ceadc3b9@gmail.com> <48b1988d-2074-3e60-62ba-5943e6ec8b91@joelhalpern.com> <523D6E9B-5504-4AA6-81B7-81B68E742E6E@employees.org> <79f04816-0249-c0b8-a72a-5d5bdf77d3f5@joelhalpern.com> <35A94D95-63B8-41BA-8CA1-010544DE1252@employees.org> <eedfd457-14a7-1c98-f765-68f2c5a84860@si6networks.com> <8D0C4CBD-8AB1-42A4-ACF6-6F2E40F9C464@employees.org> <553cdd65-e5a5-8081-fb9a-c66d34496025@si6networks.com> <8E5FC183-DE9B-4CBE-B1EA-301A08300A66@employees.org> <8ac0ada8-b8c6-6299-cbd7-615c207caa53@joelhalpern.com> <67A86E2D-80A3-4EC7-858E-A838160934CC@employees.org> <f547185e-61b5-f534-eeed-6617e1a803f9@joelhalpern.com> <8AF7D4B5-A126-4D17-A070-85F1ADDB76D5@employees.org> <5dd9cce6-d87b-4d97-66d3-7f94fbe00629@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <50a79d32-046b-3851-8afe-55fba104e44f@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:34:32 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5dd9cce6-d87b-4d97-66d3-7f94fbe00629@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2ULJXZT4uXjp4J4iOKMD2tNUksU>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 19:34:29 -0000

On 18/02/2017 07:00, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Ole
> 
> Are you saying:
> 
> A correct implementation of RFC2460 MUST NOT insert an EH at any point 
> along the path other than at the packet source.
> 
> Or
> 
> A correct implementation of RFC2460 MAY insert an EH at any point along 
> the path.

Ole doesn't, apparently, want to say either of those things.

I want to say the first *as part of the promotion to Internet Standard*
because it was the clear and documented intent of the authors and WG
of RFC 1883, which became RFC 2460. (Documented in the ancient email I dug
out a while back.) And it has been assumed by subsequent work such
as PMTUD and IPsec/AH.

If we want to *change* it, that's a separate discussion from promoting
the current standard. We can do it afterwards.

(And in answer to some other comments, I'll note that RFC 791 does not
forbid NAT, but I bet the authors would have done so if they'd thought
of it. When did forbidding something in an RFC ever prevent people from
implementing it in a limited domain?)

    Brian