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

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Sun, 19 February 2017 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.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 A37E512958D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:51:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=heard@pobox.com header.d=pobox.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 mcZJEdfqFmqw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:51:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A961B12955B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:51:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9365E6A6FE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:51:03 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BnUGVg2kv/MxTSu/T3A7BrOJRKo=; b=DcWGlm +MiWV2hrb5IH33YRNi/axJLqNcBsJHXEPXs6pbfruPGiMtNIWVzX+RNhvdIh18vU 9cztjUJX/Z0/VXw9sOKYm+IvxJNQkDT7Sw85ax27sM2ImNOd5zV6ochCUxKmhQzQ nfuLfCLrtqlcmo7algtYW+o6+gNEDbBkKAqmg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=CkZDow/1ICy/ZCy3xOoZfIpZ3dwMf9iY NKibtLXb+o7iAcrIRVEc4fjGayzlZ9FUUp89i6/r2ZjnvRyrzWr60ZFYDdkdc2Ir Y7WnDAx1k1uXBpqYjyI36LXIYZOpEn9TGjkDe/POqGmXFu6w6felfkibRa/Kuxkj pHAf4K5pfgM=
Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835CB6A6FD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:51:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail-qk0-f182.google.com (unknown [209.85.220.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB91D6A6FC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:51:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: by mail-qk0-f182.google.com with SMTP id s186so81890691qkb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:51:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m+gPU21qPXaQPRy16WZ7+plWGSXxoeIMvSW9b/8dqfVwD79aCJR7QhGLogAxiFY0eTWyqdqF6YEjTjgA==
X-Received: by 10.55.119.1 with SMTP id s1mr18939918qkc.81.1487541062439; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:51:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.18.106 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:50:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VEykmViHpT=X3XC9wiBU+wDSbHjzrj-JrkJTqtO3v4cSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACL_3VEykmViHpT=X3XC9wiBU+wDSbHjzrj-JrkJTqtO3v4cSw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:50:42 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VEKRD+2sFchdfoPWLcXi1m=oiFCb=mtO4arqOPgP5cM9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VEKRD+2sFchdfoPWLcXi1m=oiFCb=mtO4arqOPgP5cM9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 81E76C4E-F6ED-11E6-BCE3-FE3F13518317-06080547!pb-smtp1.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9XUsxR_jRIoJUJnC7icEgzxN0lU>
Cc: IETF <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: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:51:05 -0000

On 2017-02-18 Philip Homburg wrote:
> So the only purpose of a stronger text against inserting extension headers
> would be to prevent IETF working groups from publishing RFCs that use
> that technique.

That is not the only purpose -- some of us, at least, would like to believe
that stronger text will help to discourage practices that can have
demonstrably harmful effects -- but it is definitely an important purpose.

> Then the question becomes, why would we need to pre-emptively constrain
> ourselves?

To prevent IETF working groups from publishing RFCs that are inconsistent
with  existing standards track specifications and cause them not to work, or
more precisely, to prevent them from doing so without proper consideration
of negative side effects and how to deal with them (which may include
explicitly updating or obsoleting existing specifications).

//cmh