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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 12/02/2017 01:36, [e-mail] wrote:
> Brian,
> 
>>>> If people who were not involved in the 6man debate have opinions, it
>>>> would be useful to hear from them. I agree that there is no point in
>>>> the same people repeating the same arguments.
>>>
>>> in the absence of a (somewhat unbiased) summary of the critical
>>> issues(s), what do you suggest?
>>
>> I was going to say this off list, but what the heck?
>>
>> To be honest I'm trying to stay quiet. I think I've made my opinion
>> plain, and although I am of course the only human being alive who doesn't
>> suffer from confirmation bias, I'd *really* like to hear what people
>> think whose opinion I haven't already heard 20 times.
>>
>> I try not to be a purist. If the right answer is to allow packet
>> modifications that break PMTUD and IPsec/AH, let's do it, but let's
>> also say we're doing it. (I happen to think it's the wrong answer,
>> but that's my problem.) Leaving the text open to interpretation
>> would make a mockery of promoting it to Standard.
> 
> This is really not the discussion we ought to be having.
> "Allowing" or in any way specifying how header insertion could possibly be made to work is far outside of the scope of advancing 2460 to Internet standard.

If so, how can it be OK to leave the text ambiguous?

    Brian