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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all,

Can anyone give those of us not tracking 672 messages a brief summary?

IMO, without diving into that thread deeply, I agree with the new
proposed text below from Brian:

>    With one exception, extension headers are not processed, inserted,
>    deleted or modified by any node along a packet's delivery path, until
>    the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case
>    of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6
>    header.
In fact, I'd go further to say that that non-HBH EHs should not even be
*viewed* or used as context by intermediate nodes.

And any limits on what can be done with HBH EHs should be stated
explicitly. I'd be glad if at least the EH lengths didn't change.

Joe


On 2/3/2017 10:22 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> are we re-spinning the debate on a WG-agreed text ?
>>
>> <tp>
>>
>> Yes, and I am sure that that is exactly what is intended.
> Then let's encourage people outside of 6man, with other points of view, and other arguments to come forward.
>
> A re-run of the discussions already had in 6man with the same arguments and the same participants doesn't seem useful.
>
> For a brief (sic) overview take a look at 672 messages already on the topic:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=header+insertion&f_list=ipv6