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

otroan@employees.org Tue, 14 February 2017 19:12 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 3E21812970A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:12:54 -0800 (PST)
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 GLYJpP84mi4G for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70031294C2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2017 19:12:52 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAEED788E; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:12:52 -0800 (PST)
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=J0U122sRmw+OECQOMorB7Jg+5Qc=; b= qJsX+MugKiEiQatYaK+MZWIV237hvV8j5xBRtDcW9SzAb2+pDVO1ORrC7yx7jfvZ b7mzZyPLAz0+VwiofvyRyvnTic876mrD4IeglFABSiOtY6G3U7JSjyjQV1Ju/Qzt EQkK73zio0yh4tOFJLp6K29EmFuSQYBBJR+LoaADeB8=
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=YZQuwKBH3tiObx4d7MzcUrw eDZhVP71SdX57uC/7KrnHyxzG4PXUzMkyF28wfEjMYN2fnLBhqG/crG9D/Rf5BVl wm+mUKhfIha0UzqhaCV4VX7lVqdNoBNJEUqg0fV2PpC2uf9axsN3DWMe4OFbiHV8 eXA0shKkjFlaX2OxCn2k=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (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 E1E75D788B; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DC28AE2ED5; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:12:57 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <35A94D95-63B8-41BA-8CA1-010544DE1252@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_437B81B8-3B90-444C-8ACE-58116BED0314"; 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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:12:57 +0100
In-Reply-To: <79f04816-0249-c0b8-a72a-5d5bdf77d3f5@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org> <8D401C5B-C3C3-4378-9DFA-BF4ACC8E9DAF@qti.qualcomm.com> <D2D907D5-84B4-43BB-9103-F87DA9F122EB@employees.org> <33DC7B74-D240-4FF2-A8FF-C9C5A66809EE@qti.qualcomm.com> <1179DE45-3971-44A1-9630-28F76D2D652D@employees.org> <2ea64b3c-d69d-6b6c-cb04-fe63727a8bee@si6networks.com> <23C46409-337C-468D-BCDC-34027BB56CAD@employees.org> <30715b9e-e9b7-320e-f9e2-fc3f64615d5c@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqcKu1XVQOPzcd+8b68WcQyjH9QmszaSvKWhT8SvHJ0ppg@mail.gmail.com> <m2y3xdpmjd.wl-randy@psg.com> <5333378B-0F8D-4966-82B2-DFF9639CEC7D@fugue.com> <3a180e40-936b-956b-9fc3-5ecdd4d905ee@gmail.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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F7zsBQoksj5AICwJ1A-hwb4mx_Y>
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:12:54 -0000

Joel,

> Ole, it is true that we write in English, and there is always room for
> "interpretation", sometimes reasoanble room, sometimes not.
> 
> But in this case we have a demonstrated difference in how people
> understand the existing text.  When we have such a demonstrated
> difference, we have an obligation to address it.

This particular issue has caused no interoperability issue, and only a single question to the working group 20 years ago.
The current debate has been caused by a set of new proposals, independently of 2460, where the authors have in a creative reading of the current text figured out that they can shoe-horn header insertion in without actually violating the specification. Now, if clarifying the text was done, then I presume these proposals would just adapt to update 2460bis instead. The real battle would in any case have to be over those documents, not this one.

Now for the snarkiness; an issue that has created real problems is both IETF specifications (although experimental) and implementations of address rewriting by intermediate boxes. And there isn't a explicit ban on address rewriting in 2460. Should we add that? Would it help?

> PS: The ability to do ECMP is why I helped with and supported the effort to get the flow label use for ECMP entropy documented.  That would ameliorate a number of problems.  I do not expect this revision of 2460 to fix that, particularly since there seems to be little adoption.  I try not to get distracted looking for perfection.

Yes, and that's greatly appreciated!

Best regards,
Ole