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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 17 February 2017 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 20597129487 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:22:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 18yRKfxuWEU6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:22:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxb2.tigertech.net (mxb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.164]) (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 BD85A129561 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:22:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EBC3C2E5F; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:22:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1487348549; bh=SdzbVElrft4EJXyF06rAT9c+9qtYy+4mVAm6K1zhYNk=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=p+sRZEcEtkyysSiTnX5C76fxaVyTOoYuWafeJicZrB5qI4TglQpCkB5YL9fvWISEd TAE5hOyWTHpoCDOoFk87gEV4uGhvC867TIewPl4awo559jp6HzoDQX9aueuIPXXVa6 /A95PTGeTwroaRay0L80IITaZ6G1vxiDtcTC46Uw=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B9D13C2E60; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:22:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: otroan@employees.org, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <23C46409-337C-468D-BCDC-34027BB56CAD@employees.org> <30715b9e-e9b7-320e-f9e2-fc3f64615d5c@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqcKu1XVQOPzcd+8b68WcQyjH9QmszaSvKWhT8SvHJ0ppg@mail.gmail.com> <m2y3xdpmjd.wl-randy@psg.com> <5333378B-0F8D-4966-82B2-DFF9639CEC7D@fugue.com> <3a180e40-936b-956b-9fc3-5ecdd4d905ee@gmail.com> <m2poippisc.wl-randy@psg.com> <13830253-67ab-cb26-4fa0-f40a24f1a5bc@gmail.com> <76D87C97-1ECB-4E92-8FE7-ADAF464DB8FD@employees.org> <a0aaa86f-db08-4363-f9c6-0b55ceadc3b9@gmail.com> <48b1988d-2074-3e60-62ba-5943e6ec8b91@joelhalpern.com> <523D6E9B-5504-4AA6-81B7-81B68E742E6E@employees.org> <79f04816-0249-c0b8-a72a-5d5bdf77d3f5@joelhalpern.com> <35A94D95-63B8-41BA-8CA1-010544DE1252@employees.org> <eedfd457-14a7-1c98-f765-68f2c5a84860@si6networks.com> <8D0C4CBD-8AB1-42A4-ACF6-6F2E40F9C464@employees.org> <553cdd65-e5a5-8081-fb9a-c66d34496025@si6networks.com> <8E5FC183-DE9B-4CBE-B1EA-301A08300A66@employees.org>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <8ac0ada8-b8c6-6299-cbd7-615c207caa53@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:22:28 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8E5FC183-DE9B-4CBE-B1EA-301A08300A66@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kdwQMWPnWpijLRHZLu9F3b4m5NI>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 17 Feb 2017 16:22:32 -0000

Given that different people have interpreted 2460 as permitting or 
prohibiting the addition of Extension Headers by intermediate devices, 
there clearly is an ambiguity.


That is the point that concerns me.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/17/17 9:12 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> Fernando,
>
> It is a simple logical consequence.
>
> Middleboxes do not exist in the IPv6 architecture.
> There is no interpretation of 2460 that can lead to an implementor inserting headers other places than at the source.
> Therefore, there is no interoperability issue in RFC2460 nor any ambiguity that needs to be resolved in RFC2460.
>
> We're not writing law, we're writing interoperable protocol.
>
> Ole
>
>
>> On 17 Feb 2017, at 13:40, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/15/2017 07:18 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Ole, it is true that we write in English, and there is always room for
>>>>>> "interpretation", sometimes reasoanble room, sometimes not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in this case we have a demonstrated difference in how people
>>>>>> understand the existing text.  When we have such a demonstrated
>>>>>> difference, we have an obligation to address it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This particular issue has caused no interoperability issue,
>>>>
>>>> May I ask what's the data that support this statement?
>>>
>>> From the shepherd's writeup:
>>>   IPv6 is implemented on most platforms (hosts, routers, servers, etc.),
>>>   including proprietary and open source.  A list of products that have
>>>   received the IPV6 Ready logo can be found at:
>>>
>>>   https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4
>>
>> This has nothing to do wth the interoperability problems that may be
>> caused by a middlebox that inserts EHs.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You certainly have no way of knowing this, or whether interoperability
>>>> issues may arise in the future.
>>>
>>> Yes, we do know if our protocols have interoperability issues.
>>> Have you implemented RFC2460? I have. So have many others on this list.
>>> In the context of implementing 2460 there just is no ambiguity and this issue will never arise.
>>
>> Huh?  Yes, if you connect two IPv6 devices, without a middle-box
>> inserting EHs in the middle, you will not experience the associated
>> possible problems. What's the news here?
>>
>>
>>
>>> What you are talking about is something else. You are talking about the hypothetical "What if someone standardised something new in the future?"
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> C'mon, Ole. Take a look at the initial versions of the SR I-D -- and, EH
>> insertion has reportedly been deployed as a result of the implementation
>> of such initial versions of the I-D.
>>
>>
>> You can clarify that EH insertion is banned, and move rfc2460bis to full
>> stanard (since that's what's supposed to be mature)
>>
>> You can delay rfc2460->std, and work to update rfc2460.
>>
>> Now, moving rfc2460 to full std knowingly leaving a hole there such that
>> after rfc2460 is std you completely change the architecture (e2e vs
>> !e2e) with EH insertion doesn't seem a serious thing to do, IMO.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Fernando Gont
>> SI6 Networks
>> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
>> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>