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

otroan@employees.org Thu, 30 March 2017 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 A109A1294B4; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 vfzLOwZp-1ez; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B701270A7; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2017 20:48:33 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE12D788B; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=R6/E6qQB9Vdy8Fmo4vFMT5KkYaU=; b= aYHRnINlSPUF6SgDQU8JpPNMEQUriGs0Zj2raMb38isbtW7LRcztn9Rw4jZxIKhI x52yMAqTXfplknHXcCWznVlWIC5TLwQd6aogR4DSoTIVb/PwDPermZfw2xkg059K s/FKgpQSZzWNJjZNVgLskjqKvZ2T/vHVcs0loiYL2po=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=oXy8lBJKZvg8KOPLehmzRyp ML/Q45Ys+qV8Ml6zPhenVXrKn7TNJ0G0WpzUtsKe/jRMc5BK81TKkKlAzy/2b0BO OKx2aMR/YuJccSk2bWl7OIqIXzTpQ6RWuLUabmIm4i1SzqAabHrItS+foxZn9ZGj mM7OgD5ifnrswxuFxgXI=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (dhcp-8e77.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.142.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13A96D788A; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B9AA6BF52F; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:48:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <76ABEAE0-6A89-4C69-82ED-968F949A3B19@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6EEA9F65-61B6-4EAE-A7B6-8F3ECDF9BD3F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:48:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERk_cKGB6a0SQd560cMiOzT4KbSic6fCCwQWrhNkNEcO3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oahRocxJJ2yf9MRWs3QTaZHb5RQ>
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 20:48:36 -0000

Robert,

> Ok so till a new document updates 2460bis any further work on EHs is frozen as it would reference 2460bis with new text. That was my main point.
> 
> And what current EH implementations are supposed to do in the mean time ? Would IANA allocate codepoints for EH work before 2460bis is formally updated which in the current IETF speed is easy 2+years ?
> 
> Note that without the proposed clarification none of the above obstacles exist.

Write a document describing the mechanism using header insertion. That document should cover the issues raised with header insertion in general. I don't think the document should update 2460bis. The general restriction still stands.

Best regards,
Ole