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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 02/14/2017 01:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I want to reinforce this.
> 
> There are two separate but related issues here.  One is what behavior we
> want to require.  The other is whether we make the document clear.
> 
> I think choosing to leave a document going to Internet Standard
> ambiguous is a serious mistake, bordering on failure.  We know that the
> choice of permitting insertion of extension headers has interoperability
> implications.  There are weveral ways we can clarify the text.
[...]
> 
> But leaving it ambiguous ought to be a non-starter.
> 
> Personally, I would go with "MUST NOT", as I think that is the robust
> and interoperable answer.  But that is MUCH less important to me than
> our being unambiguous.

Agreed with the quoted part above.

Now regarding the possible options, may I ask: How could we possibly
allow EH insertion in this document, and still move rfc2460 to full
standard?

Allowing EH insertion in rfc2460bis would essentially preclude us from
moving it to full standard.

OTOH, as you correctly note, "I think choosing to leave a document going
to Internet Standard ambiguous is a serious mistake, bordering on failure".

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