Re: Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 28/2/20 00:20, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> At 04:26 PM 27-02-2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Seriously?
> 
> Yes.  It is up to the vendor to assess whether it is sound engineering 
> or a financially-viable decision.
> 
>> I did, one or too months ago. Also cc'ed the architecture-dicuss list.
> 
> One of the persons discussing on the thread is an IAB member.
> 
>> Would change the consensus from what to what?
>>
>> Appendix B of RFC8200 clearly says:
>>    o  Clarified that extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop
>>       Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any
>>       node along a packet's delivery path.
>>
>> Is the errata I filed anything different from such intent?
> 
> The consensus is on the text in the first part (Section 4) at 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5933  The recommendation is to 
> replace the original two paragraphs with four paragraphs.  If the above 
> is what appendix B states, the clarification (re. erratum) is not needed.

Yeah, of course erratas change text.There wouldn't be erratas if they 
were no-ops. The point is that they don't change the spirit/intent of 
the text.

Again: what do you think is the existing behavior, and how different 
that is from that described in the proposed errata?


> For what it is worth, there was an email which is allegedly from an Area 
> Director.  One of the points in that email is about "a misuse of the 
> Errata process".

That would be the case if the proposed fix was changing the intent of 
the spec. But it isn't.

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492