IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 30 March 2017 12:44 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 3CF91129698; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 uHoSKLBbuYdl; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x242.google.com (mail-it0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::242]) (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 D04FD129677; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x242.google.com with SMTP id 190so12866333itm.3; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
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=MTlfsjXmfKNHquRWOk/cej1jwTINVowrSssjAKLOtLM=; b=K96Cagm7TlTGUG6U85N/4fj1p8ZgOIfW1WGLULiExVD9y1qUXTckCJectO9Z7VI38G qlouwL81kfweOpBpAKlSvjkdvooYV5ZV3vIleEbIx3A5Tmnhe6ci5FOyYZdIKCK5AoNm u1IxrAUSbSQT+YhiMu2woxcxNpeHak/7x6W267F+02G7Wt60YSXgYXwPb8MQmh0hBzBV fe2Q441t2mOJRs9sbvXhYR3YntG/k+3TFJW72eYLJudUJQT6Y5fQLxWwSCCz3fhgV6xw DJxwKEzPeZbWCzTCFPqvRYAYztJK3NXSBXwQdhwGRgih2iSnRtYk2irYCZu+GEFQKGmE 2s6A==
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=MTlfsjXmfKNHquRWOk/cej1jwTINVowrSssjAKLOtLM=; b=teXV8AGUNeWBK91gtYHWWoPbD6L6hyqM0PlSFvz+q+AaW8a+awRvhESb7mbHwNLat3 gHOD8gq1pQAThGfZ8nYF6VE9Mv7oNck0Zy5xCkRlBzoKsxFwwTyZbSe8wltiXwzolgu1 B35LRjh2aGkpRhwGCPz4C2g9JPH2sdRYhu1zEY6q68+A6c61uzapXBEYI27Rd35xgZTr MP1/io2b3F49Molz+njIMj/jcOb26QZfT+pxc3eCHs7j7pU8QbIgjSVcMqKTuCkabUDu KU5TldradGvt+6ZN8uSP/xVrNEQKS1YpFtWDxIdSM5NoUa6r2rCaUZdR7zjaciveGOgZ yPvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2x+QIL2wyrM+LP0MH27jExMwuRAF2ZYEgZjihz4bZTCWQ3F7oxR9wbNCFEND2mrQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.0.198 with SMTP id 189mr3892889ita.82.1490877864156; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.147.88] (dhcp-9358.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.147.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m77sm1292122ita.16.2017.03.30.05.44.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, "suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <6B662F87-B0E6-4613-B406-8A22CA95DFA5@cisco.com> <4917F161-2EC8-43E0-AF4C-BFAEE44A492C@cable.comcast.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <198e3116-5448-2fdf-4da7-4811a0133f05@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:44:30 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4917F161-2EC8-43E0-AF4C-BFAEE44A492C@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/W3rpKuBxQ8hdodE4yQeI_H2sRwk>
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 12:44:26 -0000

On 30/03/2017 15:59, Leddy, John wrote:

...
> If this insert/delete of an SRH is prematurely prohibited;  What is a recommended solution to the Real World problem above.  Not use case, we are implementing.
> 
> Again; I’m worried we are eliminating a tool that may prove very helpful, preclude its use in future IETF work and shutdown a path for Innovation in Networking,

I've tried to say this before but I'm not sure people are getting it: 

RFC2460bis, if approved as is, draws a line in the sand *for interoperability across the whole Internet*. There are reasons for this - PMTUD in any form, any future replacement for the unsuccessful IPsec/AH, and all the problems of deploying extension headers that are understood by some nodes and not by others. 

There is no reason why a subsequent standards-track document cannot allow header insertion (and removal) within finite domains where the above issues do not apply. In fact, an improved version of draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-00 could become exactly that.

There doesn't need to be a tussle here. 

   Brian Carpenter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email