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

heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> Tue, 21 February 2017 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <heas@shrubbery.net>
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 478F212951E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:08:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 V7l5mI8n373A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from guelah.shrubbery.net (guelah.shrubbery.net [198.58.5.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518D412949B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by guelah.shrubbery.net (Postfix, from userid 7053) id 4359544107; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:08:39 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:08:39 +0000
From: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Message-ID: <20170221180839.GM6787@shrubbery.net>
References: <CACL_3VEykmViHpT=X3XC9wiBU+wDSbHjzrj-JrkJTqtO3v4cSw@mail.gmail.com> <CACL_3VEKRD+2sFchdfoPWLcXi1m=oiFCb=mtO4arqOPgP5cM9A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VEKRD+2sFchdfoPWLcXi1m=oiFCb=mtO4arqOPgP5cM9A@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGPkey: http://www.shrubbery.net/~heas/public-key.asc
X-note: live free, or die!
X-homer: i just want to have a beer while i am caring.
X-Claimation: an engineer needs a manager like a fish needs a bicycle
X-reality: only YOU can put an end to the embarrassment that is Tom Cruise
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Yh8dRYEHqiyVXWIGJVv_fsoQnX8>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
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: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:08:41 -0000

Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 01:50:42PM -0800, C. M. Heard:
> On 2017-02-18 Philip Homburg wrote:
> > So the only purpose of a stronger text against inserting extension headers
> > would be to prevent IETF working groups from publishing RFCs that use
> > that technique.
> 
> That is not the only purpose -- some of us, at least, would like to believe
> that stronger text will help to discourage practices that can have
> demonstrably harmful effects -- but it is definitely an important purpose.

Stronger text is also amunition for operators and users to push vendors to
fix bugs (no matter the proto in question).  we prefer the text to be
precise.  if it breaks ptmud and ptmud is essentially mandatory ....

[ps thanks for digging in the ml archive]