Re: Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 27/2/20 21:05, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> 
> [Cc trimmed to ietf@ and Area Director]
> 
[....]>> * On the technical area:
>>
>>  + Is IPv6 an End To End protocol?  Or is the IETF's stance that 
>> routers are free to mangle with the packet structure as they please?
> 
> The IETF's stance is usually documented in RFCs.  Routers are free to 
> mangle with packet structure. 

Seriously?


>> * On the procedural area:
>>
>>   + Where/how should IETF WGs seek for architecture-related advice?
> 
> I suggest sending an email to the IAB.

I did, one or too months ago. Also cc'ed the architecture-dicuss list.



>>   + What do do in situations like the above?  Wait and see how things
>>     evolve, and upon any formal decisions, just submit formal Appeals
>>     if deemed necessary?  (and after way too much energy consumed from
>>     everyone)
>>
>>     I would have expected that as soon as these issues were raised,
>>     the offending text would be removed rightaway. But that wasn't
>>     the case. And when the changes did happen, it wasn't without
>>     an extraordinary waste of time and energy from all of us.
>>     For instance, any work on IPv6 header insertion/deletion wouldn't
>>     seem to fit within the charters of the 6man or spring wgs.
>>
>>
>>     FWIW, this is not the first instance of issues surrounding the same
>>     topic. It goes back to the rfc2460bis effort, when a similar set of
>>     folks (too many from one big vendor) got to have 6man ship
>>     what became RFC8200 with a noted "ambiguity", just to be able
>>     to have some playground for EH insertion/deletion. And we only got
>>     to improve on that during IETF LC:
>>
>>    (see: 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Kp76SONpyqWneNgvtc8sh-fGAu0/)
>>
>>
>> Thoughts or advice on the technical and/or procedural aspects will be 
>> appreciated.
> 
> I read the mailing list discussions several months ago to understand the 
> SRH controversy.  In my opinion, the erratum, if approved, would change 
> the consensus at the time of publication of the specification.

Would change the consensus from what to what?

Appendix B of RFC8200 clearly says:
    o  Clarified that extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop
       Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any
       node along a packet's delivery path.

Is the errata I filed anything different from such intent?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492