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

otroan@employees.org Wed, 08 February 2017 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 747BA129A83; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:55:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 r3qFiWDVSL5R; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:55:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7682D1293EB; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:55:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2017 13:55:32 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367F9D788A; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:55:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=+g0OTkJ/Z3PEItOoCbTYaa4ID5A=; b= EeNNw3w/Xgiy/BUapnBOb7fmG73qgpRmdb01KIpbdlB6xIq3z63RsDxwOzmjoiqt k/G7GIx70ujSwrYC45XUvkYsZ30GGlNn394LYfMRZMquKZJUcSS7Tj4dYT8N8Z8W rT1UZlP5x73xRD+uFhnQoMNkHjTUSL89gakCioQZXbs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=YcIwomg9TPK/SDpzF7tMf0/ +Du44N2h/49Ef7nFEovuqXoG9vpItsVK6snh2NGzbc3nC/0ZeJcdsmNpRDWP57qo aulEFTJJbVCWMBpaFQ6bHhchgqoASGvKqvnP7AAE3iOyRFHg5HSmUyx3yU/tmSXP CzPUUANK/7IrEPgPVVhY=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0ADE1D788D; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:55:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8144286B90E7; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:55:30 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <F731A0EC-F402-4847-BCE5-89ED6F08FE45@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_18E44E21-06BF-4B44-9426-FF2BA12DFF61"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:55:30 +0100
In-Reply-To: <6e3ff88d-1954-3dbb-1bd9-aa262ea79192@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
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> <33DC7B74-D240-4FF2-A8FF-C9C5A66809EE@qti.qualcomm.com> <6e3ff88d-1954-3dbb-1bd9-aa262ea79192@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/P4si0b-4q6-1EayS13JW48kvwSw>
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, 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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:55:34 -0000

Fernando,

> Because if we did, the loophole for people to violate the standard would
> disappear (talk about Segment Routing).

There is nothing stopping a future IETF from publishing a document specifying header insertion, even if 2460bis where to ban it.

Best regards,
Ole