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

[[e-mail]]

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