Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 30 March 2017 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 9166D129543; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 RBk_3X708ev9; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x230.google.com (mail-it0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::230]) (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 F2A501294A9; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 68so3726303itx.0; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=AixT/WLWTOfZZpk0BxcpNSjX4D5f6CEkuMsD1cSvhis=; b=UJjuh6gDOraEu+aNVO4UDmpFZo9vb/4Ko+NmYb/lMS4DN0XlXcj24HQmL1waTUpcvj hQ3FCmzObLIKMgH+wn24ej6kGEEwUP4/JZvhEv+Fb6IwNpMLE1cmzqXetKEriqEzwNiE ElttXj5OzRRWYDNIJK6c57IlVB9TWWKazfVqNKpveHwhKyRqqEddFJc/YHPuKnDDylmf ITL2Mv5ZQXrFpVVzSavw7MJJDWReMaZkT1E4Hxngljlb/yar66l9eDR0S7I8CHF1xfLx EW0L/vuyVRR5fpVKqv9TLnC1CkhiD0REbqV+/cLcEJVtcA+rBNsulaU1Q3lv9lBh7AlI uTEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AixT/WLWTOfZZpk0BxcpNSjX4D5f6CEkuMsD1cSvhis=; b=jn6ekjPosguP8vp3w5UcpvRkVTMPslka904HMjhDP8dmiyTByJZObmsnpFMa+Yncyk nz0uHyGehy0uhYuOCDkz68kRP+c/p3kJjPv/0hSVQzA/uiyG9oB8ZYnm/8cN6+DIoAqs x/ibxzsgZIqG7dRoyLW0wbO9DzzVlavDybnOUYyHyapZNeO6rEMfJr5BpeXWOOu9aYdN HI5RCrkKkPUShskPncba1eMt5Hq3C3+y2K9sb67v10dAqsYoyGibXVWg0FisO1qBC5xQ K9nioXvQaVS4PB7ZOKhu5hr5zPkrvuA5hLeZX+qQWQAh1LpCdY8XeYaWpREBNRtoaxCN /ipg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2LOPWM52oT+VXRBNlsCfZxOV+ZDkMbBhDz6lQu511rKNkw+soMlyXnQrvF+TLaWK91e1DE0CMKa36xwA==
X-Received: by 10.36.90.144 with SMTP id v138mr303222ita.24.1490907325175; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.90.71 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.90.71 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <76ABEAE0-6A89-4C69-82ED-968F949A3B19@employees.org>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <6B662F87-B0E6-4613-B406-8A22CA95DFA5@cisco.com> <4917F161-2EC8-43E0-AF4C-BFAEE44A492C@cable.comcast.com> <198e3116-5448-2fdf-4da7-4811a0133f05@gmail.com> <50E4A84C-F0ED-45ED-AA89-5713CBD8F9E0@gmail.com> <5aebc8ed-f873-94e9-1ae4-dab7b3a8ebef@gmail.com> <CA+b+ERk8kHWyBY3GPp21-pgrL_SsShaLkrn4UdecFeQPYamSEg@mail.gmail.com> <A0F19A98-7DBE-4616-B949-529ED2A81D62@ericsson.com> <CA+b+ERk_cKGB6a0SQd560cMiOzT4KbSic6fCCwQWrhNkNEcO3Q@mail.gmail.com> <76ABEAE0-6A89-4C69-82ED-968F949A3B19@employees.org>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:55:23 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5sgGtpmhSpPUDVnaclKbRTtLkGI
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmqpRuw0z4ZQkhNYfEqGvqEJKYwM0hkuWg8dZrYXT4DdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: otroan@employees.org
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11429e7882a8de054bf8e9d9
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TkXQn-2nu88iZ3nrbXMpC9GnaR4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 20:55:28 -0000

Ole,

Correct me if I am missing someting but the entire debate is not about
describing or not header insertion.

I am under assumption that originating hosts still can legally insert it.

It is all about to modify EH in flight - right ? Moreover concerns raised
are about side effects of it like MTU .. not lack of instructions on how to
insert, modify or remove EH elements.

So what exactly are you expecting WG to deliver as next step if 2460bis
goes fwd ? Is detecting the max MTU on end to end path even in 6man's
charter ?

Cheers,
R.

On Mar 30, 2017 15:48, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> > Ok so till a new document updates 2460bis any further work on EHs is
> frozen as it would reference 2460bis with new text. That was my main point.
> >
> > And what current EH implementations are supposed to do in the mean time
> ? Would IANA allocate codepoints for EH work before 2460bis is formally
> updated which in the current IETF speed is easy 2+years ?
> >
> > Note that without the proposed clarification none of the above obstacles
> exist.
>
> Write a document describing the mechanism using header insertion. That
> document should cover the issues raised with header insertion in general. I
> don't think the document should update 2460bis. The general restriction
> still stands.
>
> Best regards,
> Ole
>