Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

otroan@employees.org Thu, 30 March 2017 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 562901294D2; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 4BtAXcfibokg; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3B51294B5; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2017 21:05:33 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B0AD788B; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=20/sY23ATwWs938r1mKHHsMmqIM=; b= so4QzReKNniG2WGVUIeLaR22wgKvI4xcVpB5YJDJkMTv1sRuq/EbF8vVZ71jmk0q +sSJ/lzyANkEcu+Dlubbq1pma0YQFU5cy/ivX9tVFbJpyDGQQgdw7g9s7nckXrKl A65jjTV9qF0KNadIaxuDMErr77080ZjRK+wuz8aPq04=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=TKFt1sXYHRZO6eUCkxICs/k uGT/Ec7vOp+RJg1X9hhYMqyTsVroBHSk7UyNA2T9q/4awkVLY4NWU+kEgmnu+Ksv Zdn4u8eN1TaYbLg3vzbBdEvqX43LYfxSsifDdiljM5p4U60Ed+y0f43xeRpoTOym 3H7y41mkALFh4EKk35RM=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (dhcp-8e77.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.142.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52FF0D788E; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C92BA6BF80F; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:05:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <FCFFDDCF-7A53-41E2-B414-53E568C92B35@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_73849059-1387-463D-9569-A8415D49DB84"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:05:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERmqpRuw0z4ZQkhNYfEqGvqEJKYwM0hkuWg8dZrYXT4DdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <6B662F87-B0E6-4613-B406-8A22CA95DFA5@cisco.com> <4917F161-2EC8-43E0-AF4C-BFAEE44A492C@cable.comcast.com> <198e3116-5448-2fdf-4da7-4811a0133f05@gmail.com> <50E4A84C-F0ED-45ED-AA89-5713CBD8F9E0@gmail.com> <5aebc8ed-f873-94e9-1ae4-dab7b3a8ebef@gmail.com> <CA+b+ERk8kHWyBY3GPp21-pgrL_SsShaLkrn4UdecFeQPYamSEg@mail.gmail.com> <A0F19A98-7DBE-4616-B949-529ED2A81D62@ericsson.com> <CA+b+ERk_cKGB6a0SQd560cMiOzT4KbSic6fCCwQWrhNkNEcO3Q@mail.gmail.com> <76ABEAE0-6A89-4C69-82ED-968F949A3B19@employees.org> <CA+b+ERmqpRuw0z4ZQkhNYfEqGvqEJKYwM0hkuWg8dZrYXT4DdQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6-1GQa06DrhKoFYzUlNVoBe9oSk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 21:05:36 -0000

Robert,

> Correct me if I am missing someting but the entire debate is not about describing or not header insertion.
> 
> I am under assumption that originating hosts still can legally insert it.
> 
> It is all about to modify EH in flight - right ? Moreover concerns raised are about side effects of it like MTU .. not lack of instructions on how to insert, modify or remove EH elements.
> 
> So what exactly are you expecting WG to deliver as next step if 2460bis goes fwd ? Is detecting the max MTU on end to end path even in 6man's charter ?

You can write a new protocol specification independently of 2460bis that does whatever it has to do, and then we can argue over that document on its own merits.

Cheers,
Ole