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

otroan@employees.org Fri, 17 February 2017 14:12 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 B880F1295FF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:12:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 FLw8-DkuwX4e for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:12:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7DC129558 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2017 14:12:42 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E29D788E; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:12:41 -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=vrNKzF3WTlvtXc3slAupwcyp8Qw=; b= k9RYmG/6k5E5kAFAWGcl6PT3RHLO587q+5r7Xj1b5YmkNgE+cegFvzzlFidyItOL +Je9YPo9wOVmdaiMQJC3ph3+dcJn0mH7yhfjcJW7bOmFMvKXdQyekGo+I/2NseDM NVyjQ99YxJUlQGunNYg3unC5r+E7dPAJQ+D9IXZOFjU=
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=Yp1riJEpLCQbtnOpV/gvbB1 i7i/wnwXFA1YH9VWACARCUVKoUVslxIPtE+oMnrDtXFbY9BA8DE/TglyBV9HdGE9 TDkXnKfi9DPYPOkC/ANjIzn5wqGeWZeOeVQFNXoHA7UJV0nxwJLh61axhYmGlEuW JgHoe8k54Rwfm58olvsU=
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 6B829D788B; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5718C5E787; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:12:55 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <8E5FC183-DE9B-4CBE-B1EA-301A08300A66@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2CC80298-7A05-4B94-9CA3-18EAD202B496"; 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: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:12:54 +0100
In-Reply-To: <553cdd65-e5a5-8081-fb9a-c66d34496025@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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> <35A94D95-63B8-41BA-8CA1-010544DE1252@employees.org> <eedfd457-14a7-1c98-f765-68f2c5a84860@si6networks.com> <8D0C4CBD-8AB1-42A4-ACF6-6F2E40F9C464@employees.org> <553cdd65-e5a5-8081-fb9a-c66d34496025@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FxEHu83mxS-dd7Y1QkdwiDkSGRg>
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: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:12:44 -0000

Fernando,

It is a simple logical consequence.

Middleboxes do not exist in the IPv6 architecture.
There is no interpretation of 2460 that can lead to an implementor inserting headers other places than at the source.
Therefore, there is no interoperability issue in RFC2460 nor any ambiguity that needs to be resolved in RFC2460.

We're not writing law, we're writing interoperable protocol.

Ole


> On 17 Feb 2017, at 13:40, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> On 02/15/2017 07:18 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>> 
>>>>> 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,
>>> 
>>> May I ask what's the data that support this statement?
>> 
>> From the shepherd's writeup:
>>   IPv6 is implemented on most platforms (hosts, routers, servers, etc.),
>>   including proprietary and open source.  A list of products that have
>>   received the IPV6 Ready logo can be found at:
>> 
>>   https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4
> 
> This has nothing to do wth the interoperability problems that may be
> caused by a middlebox that inserts EHs.
> 
> 
> 
>>> You certainly have no way of knowing this, or whether interoperability
>>> issues may arise in the future.
>> 
>> Yes, we do know if our protocols have interoperability issues.
>> Have you implemented RFC2460? I have. So have many others on this list.
>> In the context of implementing 2460 there just is no ambiguity and this issue will never arise.
> 
> Huh?  Yes, if you connect two IPv6 devices, without a middle-box
> inserting EHs in the middle, you will not experience the associated
> possible problems. What's the news here?
> 
> 
> 
>> What you are talking about is something else. You are talking about the hypothetical "What if someone standardised something new in the future?"
> 
> :-)
> 
> C'mon, Ole. Take a look at the initial versions of the SR I-D -- and, EH
> insertion has reportedly been deployed as a result of the implementation
> of such initial versions of the I-D.
> 
> 
> You can clarify that EH insertion is banned, and move rfc2460bis to full
> stanard (since that's what's supposed to be mature)
> 
> You can delay rfc2460->std, and work to update rfc2460.
> 
> Now, moving rfc2460 to full std knowingly leaving a hole there such that
> after rfc2460 is std you completely change the architecture (e2e vs
> !e2e) with EH insertion doesn't seem a serious thing to do, IMO.
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492