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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 11 February 2017 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 4E9E2129457 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:24:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 J2D95HzaT6Hu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x243.google.com (mail-pf0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 121B11293EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x243.google.com with SMTP id e4so4262011pfg.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:24:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=o3lrDmvx52h2cpBOkqMk6R9Mw5mowHqrlIgXkcXxWiQ=; b=c8uUB3YwigupX8nLJPWl4eo5evaiR3GbSbANPrmoJLcPiBeYNrgZJm/alGte5M7Kiy Oeby9pohZZyDhafjWLC18AJcHjzY/6OMQnHDOhS/5h/J1gioc9GJnzlBP0qU+t72NMHT pWmCjt3hKPGPUom/dbVADhdxoIgZ1zoIP09JFKZnXFlupXjSJ7jyzhZ0mXA5oU39mdMD yLbKTKYULKwiUqV0u5c0QXo00CTiXJ/cNEmkyyLPSxHq0LOIKzIKHpmqfwUNJTO6fIyF yX9fT6A8Z2YoOdGWtympGrWA4blMxDILbeytvoHQ9M6XvNgIcZ5jH8SdwR5JaiFVHITK WUSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=o3lrDmvx52h2cpBOkqMk6R9Mw5mowHqrlIgXkcXxWiQ=; b=BTNBdBV8d1n3sLSRq7UAKGWOydWYXEOvLG/lZpcQyQYnYy12N5pXQiYnfQrco+VaEz 5SzDmX3e/+zmGsyhrP90R4er6g47LE7OXiT1825VgnukD3laZBWYVN/oGNTinKgh5nYB GlUtEp1jKTT5bewZcDC7wh6ceAPHph6zYuQe9eMhLzeAdbQyr/M7AJQed+2rOYbtmsLr DQ0CrxkhO0XRMWvwodcq3MnCcs9EVbrs1eapnAkM8DtmoPkiWxxC6sP0Uk8f4uJ0wTnD ssqZ5b4ADaTxslkg7RJ25HK/xHWibVwy8qAkPa25bR+ie+GAvL7RrY5xwBV3fLIMY2Z2 2aGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mfgGUXAMZffqyCeCJ/RY6Qc1OIBdbCTD5jTutns/d4l+6E15hPULxtM8G2lQtabw==
X-Received: by 10.84.248.11 with SMTP id p11mr19471049pll.72.1486841062600; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:24:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.149.99.98]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s65sm6095293pgb.64.2017.02.11.11.24.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:24:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: otroan@employees.org
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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> <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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <a0aaa86f-db08-4363-f9c6-0b55ceadc3b9@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:24:16 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <76D87C97-1ECB-4E92-8FE7-ADAF464DB8FD@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/R4Ge5sk_dVleavCEDIJDGQnzeGo>
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: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:24:24 -0000

On 12/02/2017 01:36, otroan@employees.org 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