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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 02/08/2017 10:55 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
>> Because if we did, the loophole for people to violate the standard
>> would disappear (talk about Segment Routing).
> 
> There is nothing stopping a future IETF from publishing a document
> specifying header insertion, even if 2460bis where to ban it.

There's a "small" difference: If the standard clearly states that header
insertion is forbidden, then, a proposal to insert EHs would need to
update the corresponding standard.

Since RFC2460 is being moved to (full) Standard, that would not be minor.

I guess we all know what, and why we even got to rather ridiculous
arguments of the form "we can do EH insertion because RFC2460 does not
prohibit it"   (well, yes, :-)  RFC2460 does not prohibit that upon
receipt of an IPv6 packet, a router drops the IPv6 packet, and forwards
a TCP packet instead... )

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