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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Sun, 05 February 2017 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 E91631294C6; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 01:42:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 gxvI44VRbRKq; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 01:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 437221293F2; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 01:42:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29BA649; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:42:55 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1486287773; bh=UXSnU1+4bvdqn1rSjxl hIptwPWJCm/RTmP04VoCSPDI=; b=FVQVJl0yTPeWWOEv+monXKyBM2fwVXouBxn AHe4shbPIxj0qduWF0i4IId6ZIGyvlrJLsK30FqxTiHmLYmayuu8IaZyBRVSTXHh 6ul5wMjot/4M947we37xm3y6w7xNMkLC2mnEKXZYmU0U58qYFHkyxhMmM8EC6xjr tNOCtj+4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id g_UESnvxZCWf; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:42:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.22.79.216] (unknown [89.248.140.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 314AD48; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:42:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <D8DD56B7-21CF-4175-B906-FB803D119F8A@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_240FE3CE-9C4F-4E11-B73F-38CDCCEBE50E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:42:49 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20170204190635.GC80290@ernw.de>
To: Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de>
References: <9c3abcb7-81f4-e23f-3b1a-3d4e97b15314@si6networks.com> <9b8383cd-f0aa-3ea2-1521-ab9cba8e50a5@si6networks.com> <20170204190635.GC80290@ernw.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Dhsc_q-jmYirelC6f0PLOUEg1Jc>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@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, 05 Feb 2017 09:43:00 -0000

Hi Enno,

> For the protocol: given the fundamental role of RFC 2460 I, too, think that an implementor must be able to get a clear answer to the question "is EH insertion allowed or not?" during its lecture, without going through 600+ e-mails in an archive (just to find out that "even the experts didn't agree on that, at the time"). So I support Fernando's request of
>> Either explicitly ban extension header insertion, or explicitly allow it.

+1

Personally I think middleboxes should not insert or remove extensions headers. But whatever happens, it should be explicitly stated.

Cheers,
Sander