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

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Tue, 07 February 2017 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
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 23BAD12962A; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:25:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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=qti.qualcomm.com
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 MR67V0BT4IJj; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:25:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD3521295D5; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:25:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1486502720; x=1518038720; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=D2zc5eopqs2xZekQq5mVK/GTKZN92tbPxxWDpFsnvMg=; b=dCey8iU8j1E8EikbIaA9rRxQCUZNd7jwq9vfSonvu8OIJUQ+aIPHUS8V zWrycOwktysv18jZAT++gOzzt4/EsGpxYBJSpwH1sO1SCXiZz9Fc+ygB3 KUzmJzMpa91BhZW5C8J9Q1zYFCyvvyoWuMRFJ+5gawmZ+ySZm9WJNmeE8 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,346,1477983600"; d="scan'208,217";a="260962660"
Received: from unknown (HELO Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com) ([10.53.140.107]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2017 13:25:19 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5800,7501,8432"; a="1304961735"
Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 07 Feb 2017 13:25:19 -0800
Received: from [10.64.115.82] (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:25:18 -0800
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: <otroan@employees.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:25:17 -0600
Message-ID: <33DC7B74-D240-4FF2-A8FF-C9C5A66809EE@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <D2D907D5-84B4-43BB-9103-F87DA9F122EB@employees.org>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com> <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org> <8D401C5B-C3C3-4378-9DFA-BF4ACC8E9DAF@qti.qualcomm.com> <D2D907D5-84B4-43BB-9103-F87DA9F122EB@employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_AF1123C9-A45F-4E9A-8F06-0401F0CF76DD_="
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01E.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.31) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MKBGFYxeBmt6gjqdZQ4fL-wmYTI>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, Stefano Previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com>, 6man-chairs@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: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:25:29 -0000

Ole,

After reading the replies, I wonder if you could amend your summary with 
one point in particular:

On 4 Feb 2017, at 2:32, otroan@employees.org wrote:

> There were three main positions argued in the working group.
>
> 1) Ban header insertion outright.
> 2) Describe the problems with header insertion.
> 3) No changes to RFC2460 text.

What did you see as the objections to going with (1) (which I presume to 
be the equivalent of Brian's proposed text)? Why was it that people 
thought the protocol could not be clarified to say that? And was your 
assessment that those arguments were correct, or that they simply were 
not addressed by the WG? I've seen several people argue on this list 
that (1) was always the intent of the protocol, and that damage occurs 
if you don't follow that directive. I haven't seen anyone here argue 
otherwise. Could you summarize?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478