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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 30 March 2017 21:50 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 52C7512960F; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:24 -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, 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 URTPAMwqAydp; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x242.google.com (mail-io0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::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 55B16129548; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x242.google.com with SMTP id 68so4279466ioh.3; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:22 -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=7CUCyhvMUQ4PAI3Cn4+2B3y0kH2rADicqfAqtWpYvGs=; b=ii37flu6MV9XGHe1b9kMACSAwcS5xnsR6ethpw6qJfcWORqBL9ZC7amDLfTO4DPYh8 fTU6hu3MolNqO4mTOGDpSZG+HZtJxn8S5HTA5Yp11PBgfdxObjC6yrbp4X4/610httJ2 FK3sIL/DFKhynGcPKEBVtXFiSsVaDuHMIliFOnXSvNEm/Coqjeog7nwm4KXj8YW59feh R6AJoJiV0KEUWTVx7XeRRBElPMYjKNa6FsjBtyamG9r9v9U6pCH0ijprk+1ojvALZtoc dgXYiNk7nLXvmfOzNwfYfaOeE/n9Wlz0VUeF0ZnTJiuhw9Rwyl27nxs+Fr/jRbL6arOO hAGg==
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=7CUCyhvMUQ4PAI3Cn4+2B3y0kH2rADicqfAqtWpYvGs=; b=OY5ajjow2bb4DBbYy1rbR9lesrZRDkR/UYMBeKRNMn6+cijZCl5yVP96uyZ6toSFTx UWr7tIPPbkvXVjO6NsC8ZkytVkCdlCq+qpzQhdarvnVxzAbjobT6YrTviPw5IuafKTER f5lEaC8fWVfCyW2VtFii+WBebRCbVxQ6etgcEklv0tmlVg+1uogNR7REPxiGPrdHOiYd vGeZv16LEQl934L0KdwV04rsInFWJEeL5b0azfT1UhepVQwFpyHx1rsGbe8TyvmqdArJ wrEG6tbrwlcn/PbES3MHuyTJBUqpJS9i6EqkP/TIgMScmYVMp5p1vhh65fjRieWC0aYF ndPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0sv7bmZfh2eMcKXPAKstqhrF1x4qtxG/IgitDhNm8nwoBwJp48wspRrPizBjpN+g==
X-Received: by 10.107.46.24 with SMTP id i24mr3577782ioo.84.1490910621700; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? (t2001067c0370012828ccdc4c97036781.v6.meeting.ietf.org. [2001:67c:370:128:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c91sm2091019iod.18.2017.03.30.14.50.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, otroan@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> <CA+b+ERmqpRuw0z4ZQkhNYfEqGvqEJKYwM0hkuWg8dZrYXT4DdQ@mail.gmail.com> <FCFFDDCF-7A53-41E2-B414-53E568C92B35@employees.org> <CA+b+ERmELF1p_5vX_nqhB58Bm8c34N6=kkijuCRYkfkQcfKneQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <0ae6ba21-0529-e9ca-ab74-b18a85acad4a@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:50:29 +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: <CA+b+ERmELF1p_5vX_nqhB58Bm8c34N6=kkijuCRYkfkQcfKneQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_f6S23fXRiwX7Aix32yCGomoRoE>
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 21:50:24 -0000

On 31/03/2017 10:13, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> What's wrong or what is missing in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-05
> 
> ?

Once we get 2460bis out of the door, we should seriously tackle that question.
Honestly it's going to be easier then. I perhaps disagree with Ole whether we
need an Updates: 2460bis but that depends on the details.

    Brian

> 
> On Mar 30, 2017 16:05, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
>> Robert,
>>
>>> 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 ?
>>
>> You can write a new protocol specification independently of 2460bis that
>> does whatever it has to do, and then we can argue over that document on its
>> own merits.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ole
>>
>