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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 11/02/2017 15:23, Randy Bush wrote:
>> If people who were not involved in the 6man debate have opinions, it
>> would be useful to hear from them. I agree that there is no point in
>> the same people repeating the same arguments.
> 
> in the absence of a (somewhat unbiased) summary of the critical
> issues(s), what do you suggest?

I was going to say this off list, but what the heck?

To be honest I'm trying to stay quiet. I think I've made my opinion
plain, and although I am of course the only human being alive who doesn't
suffer from confirmation bias, I'd *really* like to hear what people
think whose opinion I haven't already heard 20 times.

I try not to be a purist. If the right answer is to allow packet
modifications that break PMTUD and IPsec/AH, let's do it, but let's
also say we're doing it. (I happen to think it's the wrong answer,
but that's my problem.) Leaving the text open to interpretation
would make a mockery of promoting it to Standard.

Regards
   Brian