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

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.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 93B32128DF6; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ydEAKCW9-ufE; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (usplmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C84912943A; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-417ff700000058cf-92-58de54c20303
Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E9.3D.22735.2C45ED85; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:08:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.03.0339.000; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:08:25 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
Thread-Topic: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
Thread-Index: AQHSnTZv86cghjjmGk6P6rsvHH5Q4qGssVmAgAD+BwCAAAesgIAAIVmAgAAFgwCAAASPgIAAEkGAgABB5oCAAAHpgIAAAteAgAACGICAAAp2gIABEiqAgAAWegCAABjkgIAADLGAgAACtQCAAANRAA==
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:08:22 +0000
Message-ID: <0206BF42-1C7C-44F2-8F18-DC9ABB6DA746@ericsson.com>
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> <0ae6ba21-0529-e9ca-ab74-b18a85acad4a@gmail.com> <CA+b+ERm7vO-ZpSHKLvY+BfgWpMa7+abKR6BFnXkgUuUPEXYVEg@mail.gmail.com> <6C78BE2C-58B6-4A3A-B42A-C8A46D68B730@ericsson.com> <CA+b+ERk4mbHrTZi3JFKBh4RjUzN=SVUGONvFuEA5Ed178MzZmA@mail.gmail.com> <3A7C2C05-8513-4248-82F3-15CC9C75B69E@ericsson.com> <CA+b+ERmchYvF9uexQZ-j752OPrtzr_TQgyDov7q01EvYe1ByWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERmchYvF9uexQZ-j752OPrtzr_TQgyDov7q01EvYe1ByWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DA10ED56-F762-4E5F-B1F8-2CD5587EED8F"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrAIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgu7RkHsRBvenGlm0XdzHZPHq7TU2 i2cb57NYvDz7nsli6YLlTBaT21awWTQtbGJ2YPe43tnC7HHw2EdGj52z7rJ7LFnyk8lj98YF TAGsUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZr6+1sxV8iqj4e/IaWwPjjcAuRg4OCQETiRmL/bsYuTiEBDYw ShzY2ssO4SxnlNiw+jiQw8nBBlS0YednJhBbREBVovPEI2aQImaBKUwSu5s2gxUJC3hITNp0 jQWiyFNi3cbDLCBFIgLLGCUaHneCFbEAdf+9fBnM5hWwl9g/5TIjxLpfHBIt1yawgiQ4BQIl 1p24xghiMwqISXw/tQZsNbOAuMStJ/PBbAkBEYmHF0+zQdiiEi8f/2OFsJUkPv6ezw51HqPE +mtrWCC2CUqcnPmEZQKjyCwks2Yhq5uFpA6iKEni+cP/rBC2tsSyha+ZIWxNif3dy1kwxTUk Or9NhKo3lXh99CMjhG0tMePXQTYIW1FiSvdD9gWM3KsYOUqLC3Jy040MNzEC4/6YBJvjDsa9 vZ6HGAU4GJV4eBdo3IsQYk0sK67MPcSoAtT6aMPqC4xSLHn5ealKIrwyOUBp3pTEyqrUovz4 otKc1OJDjNIcLErivO/KL0QICaQnlqRmp6YWpBbBZJk4OKUaGNX/XXtUv+Y+V4RV77TV9wQY u/yMHIpCVhfVKxaF5fCar7Ux2rZ28iEHWZ/qS0HitsdSv5l2LJ/p5MDwfl/iVOW/exdscXmx bp7S88PrdhxqWZSzNmw1l9SECdc//SluPCHMfiNmoYv9SrWwp15RbRu4J+334j4rsGX9x4BZ ufzPmOOfFD4V9VViKc5INNRiLipOBAA+jqD/AwMAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iiWBUVk6Gln-cYZYkkKakadqQoE>
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:08:33 -0000

Hi Robert,

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> Even if we treat encapsulation in new IPv6 header as only an option ?

There are two options listed in the draft with the “either” clause quoted below. Both of them are compliant. In fact, in my not so careful reading, I do not see any text in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-06 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-06> that would be contrary to this text in RFC2460bis.

Thanks
Suresh

P.S.: I am assuming you are using the word option to mean a choice and not an IPv6 option. If not, please clarify.

> 
> Thx
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 31, 2017 12:46, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com <mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
>> On Mar 31, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Suresh,
>> 
>> As you requested one of many quotes from the draft which your clarification to 2460bis directly contradicts with:
>> 
>> This include either:
>> 
>>       A host originating an IPv6 packet.
>> 
>>       An SR domain ingress router encapsulating a received IPv6 packet
>>       into an outer IPv6 header followed by an SRH.
> 
> Excellent. Thanks for pointing out the exact text. I can confirm that this text  *is compliant* with the RFC2460bis text.
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
>