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 18:13 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 E1620129644 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:13:08 -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 4iu4bE9v85GB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B97712955C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2017 18:13:07 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21529D788A; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:13:07 -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=VTqfzo461qv2SVv/swrufKL9RCA=; b= RLyt1UGzbDHf0S1N5lgvHD6mWgckauRRrMirRAj3Y7vfRAIE4RqbsPbWQ/oZwg1E wfpGoQirbn4mW6q1TV36cLFso25Csyx5nBJdg1Vj1iKdgsTiZpfPApshDDr/3OG8 cKriwuFASIpk4U9YKBAuqSn0HElPdpbvIoXo8lGvblM=
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=CXmwpTGUDQIue0wPkPWDZ6G h1KdshD5TqiA+zqsateZhISKHG4eQYGB/CxY4F4d/DENHeGzx3PDD65iRiRZVZtI 19cf3uF5ayTJaNKJdmiY0aJ03C7Ew1x5SbSJLn4fc6/3UQ2gDYO8LYvDSfWkURyX dEczvgEkYsKtpurFEooE=
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 EA142D788D; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004B28CA526F; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 19:13:20 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <AC99CD5F-2413-4128-8992-E8A7013641A1@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_24ACC29E-A01E-4380-BC8A-BE8F02F65972"; 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 19:13:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5dd9cce6-d87b-4d97-66d3-7f94fbe00629@gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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> <8E5FC183-DE9B-4CBE-B1EA-301A08300A66@employees.org> <8ac0ada8-b8c6-6299-cbd7-615c207caa53@joelhalpern.com> <67A86E2D-80A3-4EC7-858E-A838160934CC@employees.org> <f547185e-61b5-f534-eeed-6617e1a803f9@joelhalpern.com> <8AF7D4B5-A126-4D17-A070-85F1ADDB76D5@employees.org> <5dd9cce6-d87b-4d97-66d3-7f94fbe00629@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HUQsAniM95Y1rRamvgkxTefuoA8>
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 18:13:09 -0000

Stewart,

> Are you saying:
> 
> A correct implementation of RFC2460 MUST NOT insert an EH at any point along the path other than at the packet source.
> 
> Or
> 
> A correct implementation of RFC2460 MAY insert an EH at any point along the path.

No, I'm saying that for a correct implementation of RFC2460 the issue doesn't ever arise.

> Either way, why not add that line to the text to remove any possible ambiguity in interpretation?

Yes, we could. We couldn't find consensus for that in the working group though.
I'm trying out the argument of declaring the whole question of ambiguity out of scope. To see if there is better consensus for that.

Best regards,
Ole