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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 30 March 2017 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 DAE4F129483; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 niRhNV8m2Vv6; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (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 4A4081294FF; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id y18so3793814itc.1; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=9qHEfACCnq5wDrqZG/5dXKPkaffAc4qLLnCUgsQxEU4=; b=pkyKnu1v0obvciCDC2WXQhiztpwaexkSaSfOdulK39PJaGjnJEf/0FKYvPg3Edpv0+ UmoOE9OA3hXK6Qsf0dAX7u+zKldytmo6M6/0a9YJ8682cGHFA2t3Jpy6hZOUdjiaHUZU KrSHjb3iJJs/dYTbko9JJ5GO207/fJ0yWbg27y8arnvAU58UvMKbwhouIt3GmM+W9Ln7 H1uOsJSOydR1N9ADBN0MqiEdjfe/idI6H7GGuQZxMQszCS9aRET2ebHZiIt8ub4hsIle gyOSsHSI34XLCD2VdUoHNmD1jgKB2FJh5YeYQhvZkU/pHqdfXklrnXiohippupf+ev1r 3slw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9qHEfACCnq5wDrqZG/5dXKPkaffAc4qLLnCUgsQxEU4=; b=pXLK4WJlxlODDtBDLUEM1Nbx3ftCOhQfGt/EuIb2oK04j6PeUtMVB/ZuUewUv+J0jZ lUA4c7kukHTJVncsDUHh+j7iUtnbKmWIVBXjP7R40K3Zp13kxIBWuORzHg7QkzT8Uv2f 19KawoPBlLeHoGDmI6KsV4jyKXdhXocxWa4wuy9NskuEKlutFFdnc7xdQ3hGDUpx4qsi 1xtC2SYq3mwC2D0TtfkfTC7ejEMCwO1iId+dxrAf4tTQUx1bIDOA7mVs7vlGBqVV3NIt ZiUeBMy+Rmcdev1V/ZbsKulnQ/XlArfqvBBQ3g9xoCvGqkwEeVDym9wTjqznSOmE/4Xj MqaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3Hdmhlh67eA17RL+jR7PsMu1/3j5dX5a/NDiiaCAp58dbMlboRR88gw96rDDdZ2Xh4ZSs3YXY1Z1KbAg==
X-Received: by 10.36.43.78 with SMTP id h75mr308573ita.25.1490908384722; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.90.71 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.90.71 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <FCFFDDCF-7A53-41E2-B414-53E568C92B35@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>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:13:03 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AOK4OYC5rm0V-o8rlpvQ1A0Et8M
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmELF1p_5vX_nqhB58Bm8c34N6=kkijuCRYkfkQcfKneQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: otroan@employees.org
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146f426aa0381054bf92898
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iGLLVtRjYnmBrhTy-4NzwDOkTJk>
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 21:13:11 -0000

What's wrong or what is missing in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-05

?

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
>