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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 11 February 2017 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB29129489 for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:10:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O1YBDDwMB-9d for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:10:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77823129415 for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:10:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 202so10557179pfx.2 for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:10:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rTw/MT2IPSLnA79xsD2SyuGxQqe3YfopuyQmF6tojiU=; b=PFDqAaot/P5OsCKtSXnsCCzMuDG7EisTmUtIJAu4XOERl93vjAxI6KALSPSk4G+Yyg Ug39qduXweBX83EhvyRkbH1qc2Ndy7SuO0Nx5W9LJo+Z5bbNoXkOoB9x38//Zp4fJE4B VcrsWKJh0oBmViw0Jy3VzWuwxDyYnDjv144ihLnRaRrkYYkC2ytoTh7CWABTBXZ3B3zG YUuCvlR+AgmxGAqvNGuzFEe6z1V0bBkYN5q48LU4BU/BOsrTQz7bLGD/5f7M9SJDCQg6 UtidH7AwGVs0v+so8KV2KUMbZhT3tfb6hoK5zXsaqjN/YTzk26FE0lyS9CmIPfNOHQz5 emJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rTw/MT2IPSLnA79xsD2SyuGxQqe3YfopuyQmF6tojiU=; b=EWbt7cRtLIs7qI2W13Z0hjwKUyQRbKoiNFOw7ARt6h/HRo0l+ZscIKu7iPmCU1ve8E HKuxEGHaQRM5JBi4ZD/euEhrbZRclvhdlAmocM0OP2ipOYcO1gBk7mzi3YIxfKETYOmA nyip2McdlN58PSIkzWQOeiNKFvBHnc9tKT5NpESlVYfUzpyyyccLrehmIoRWjtE/0+9X F5gVBJT/yEpvhCD6/evBraZa57niYzz2laQIowhfcLNY4R1QarJ+6MdtQgdBOa40d/b9 d+ci1gEGiKbmFYvcAMT0RkjSWZf+Cz5gU6z9ZllMjTKpHECpSL3ymp4FMrTAWw/d+kP7 lRDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m9bFznuzsr35fmUMxKdaDGeJonWN2x3RnP8btXjgbJxuxdVhxJx6EzHs0tDdxSuw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l189mr14500535pgd.45.1486782642858; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:769c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:769c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id z70sm7977889pff.26.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:10:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: Randy Bush <>, IETF discussion list <>
References: <> <> <> <> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:10:49 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 03:10:45 -0000

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.