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

otroan@employees.org Sat, 11 February 2017 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 36665129618 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:36:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 rzndr46a0zcd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E391294E0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2017 12:36:52 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C0DD788D; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:36:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=7cxyugcVhloFCgiv/9RD4/pYyy4=; b= YoUzA7aI9QpqXcJ9kq8wvBAEek8kV5JdyYXmvkthYxeGSDBaIwzA+GMcvLIH5DfH c7zo4hw/VxPQlQlHIPH5NhHDlqIShWc1VMWhItQcX0d+TWJqiiI4hQoIldROZXZi MiiAZ+8lSimcL5n6YliO7VIFMmTLgihRf5bEX5oHHUk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=cP1OHir7G8ibR7+pJCBN4yo frgrmnJbMwggBOwMOEtg5b8411SwFF+ReYlqOm7cF9KoUdzlniuW+OCMQ4fgF1CK pz25wmyPzBaD1LJht76pGUihVworO0UoTW7OfQlkiQYYCQSSBB2BETwQVuhfONkU KuIfpOY8pkSMtPohHxPA=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DBA9D788B; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:36:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3290A894A95E; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:36:52 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <76D87C97-1ECB-4E92-8FE7-ADAF464DB8FD@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DB283C45-6594-4ED1-96F7-C700C8A55840"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:36:51 +0100
In-Reply-To: <13830253-67ab-cb26-4fa0-f40a24f1a5bc@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YqxeNyu2NJm53fmIeCwbbM7aieg>
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 12:36:54 -0000

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.

Best regards,
Ole