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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 8E86E1294A5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:16:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1Hmmx_jg6UaA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8E0112941A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1291:200:42e::2] (cl-1071.udi-01.br.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:1291:200:42e::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2746282981; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:16:18 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, otroan@employees.org
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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> <33DC7B74-D240-4FF2-A8FF-C9C5A66809EE@qti.qualcomm.com> <1179DE45-3971-44A1-9630-28F76D2D652D@employees.org> <2ea64b3c-d69d-6b6c-cb04-fe63727a8bee@si6networks.com> <23C46409-337C-468D-BCDC-34027BB56CAD@employees.org> <30715b9e-e9b7-320e-f9e2-fc3f64615d5c@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqcKu1XVQOPzcd+8b68WcQyjH9QmszaSvKWhT8SvHJ0ppg@mail.gmail.com> <m2y3xdpmjd.wl-randy@psg.com> <5333378B-0F8D-4966-82B2-DFF9639CEC7D@fugue.com> <3a180e40-936b-956b-9fc3-5ecdd4d905ee@gmail.com> <m2poippisc.wl-randy@psg.com> <13830253-67ab-cb26-4fa0-f40a24f1a5bc@gmail.com> <76D87C97-1ECB-4E92-8FE7-ADAF464DB8FD@employees.org> <a0aaa86f-db08-4363-f9c6-0b55ceadc3b9@gmail.com> <48b1988d-2074-3e60-62ba-5943e6ec8b91@joelhalpern.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <f5ced76c-91ab-a927-5296-ac3d8ae9a8ad@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:10:32 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <48b1988d-2074-3e60-62ba-5943e6ec8b91@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NemLLge74WkBUlxuZkCMj1fGmEo>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@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, 14 Feb 2017 17:16:25 -0000

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: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492