Re: Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fernando,

[Cc trimmed to ietf@ and Area Director]

At 01:42 PM 27-02-2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
>I've raised the topic to our AD (Suresh), to the IAB, and on the 
>arch-d list before, but so far haven't been lucky or seen anything 
>meaningful happen in this area.
>
>I have also submitted an errata to make RFC8200 even more clear on 
>the topic, but it remains unprocessed.
>
>So my questions are:
>
>* On the technical area:
>
>  + Is IPv6 an End To End protocol?  Or is the IETF's stance that 
> routers are free to mangle with the packet structure as they please?

The IETF's stance is usually documented in RFCs.  Routers are free to 
mangle with packet structure.  However, that does not mean that the 
packet will reach its destination.

>  + Was IPv6 designed that way? And if it wasn't, when/how was the 
> architecture changed?

The design is dated 1995.   The latest specification is dated 
2017.  I assume that the issue is about Section 4 of that specification.

>* On the procedural area:
>
>   + Where/how should IETF WGs seek for architecture-related advice?

I suggest sending an email to the IAB.

>   + What do do in situations like the above?  Wait and see how things
>     evolve, and upon any formal decisions, just submit formal Appeals
>     if deemed necessary?  (and after way too much energy consumed from
>     everyone)
>
>     I would have expected that as soon as these issues were raised,
>     the offending text would be removed rightaway. But that wasn't
>     the case. And when the changes did happen, it wasn't without
>     an extraordinary waste of time and energy from all of us.
>     For instance, any work on IPv6 header insertion/deletion wouldn't
>     seem to fit within the charters of the 6man or spring wgs.
>
>
>     FWIW, this is not the first instance of issues surrounding the same
>     topic. It goes back to the rfc2460bis effort, when a similar set of
>     folks (too many from one big vendor) got to have 6man ship
>     what became RFC8200 with a noted "ambiguity", just to be able
>     to have some playground for EH insertion/deletion. And we only got
>     to improve on that during IETF LC:
>
>    (see: 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Kp76SONpyqWneNgvtc8sh-fGAu0/)
>
>
>Thoughts or advice on the technical and/or procedural aspects will 
>be appreciated.

I read the mailing list discussions several months ago to understand 
the SRH controversy.  In my opinion, the erratum, if approved, would 
change the consensus at the time of publication of the specification.

The process allows you, or any other participant, to file an 
appeal.  My advice would be to discuss the matter with the Working 
Group Chairs first.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy