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

otroan@employees.org Fri, 17 February 2017 14:40 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 2E6D6129AAA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:40:06 -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, 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 sH75QuFn-KwF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:40:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE98129AA7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:40:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2017 14:40:04 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF12ED788A; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:40:03 -0800 (PST)
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=wK/aS4jY5DK0I6gRI8h/l5XbpR8=; b= XSm9xa30q2kX4IHcEXu6qYn1/tdU+rH/7pMffYi9Gdc9o57DxWnx5rRmdi/lv/Ow kazJLZjL2Bpoy2xCU5JO0Ch2wKRkW/QK1XsjjlcvjBMY6wyOOGV27P5HJzS1E4bx 52R6L4Aybjc+h3Y5n4dKGC8Dh8v3vh6PHJMbvaGw4xY=
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=oeoNihkL039AAtqqxoHlLVK wDgmScZJyFhaifiAcCediodI8McWQX0QH7lkyI5TYD2PcN8bup3mdJt33zK1FGrN YeWWVU/swoahHbtpjHaFvtg3v7AlBeYfgGoB3Ry3e2ZtDNoEynLlr9HfzxvTntty lhgy71Wa3DctZZg3ZwNM=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (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 42865D788F; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:40:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650758C657F9; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:40:17 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <A1EE2939-724D-4683-A119-2D7478C336DA@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_95A8EBFF-5B54-4000-905E-CE79BB5FD852"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:40:16 +0100
In-Reply-To: <292a9832-7d8f-431c-6916-5e1da96a0e83@si6networks.com>
To: 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> <292a9832-7d8f-431c-6916-5e1da96a0e83@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oyqmMN_DFL5ABbA6GdC9fIDmldg>
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 14:40:06 -0000

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.
> 
> lAt the Last 6man meeting there was a bunch of people arguing that
> inserting EHs was "ok" because "it was not explicitly banned" -- the
> "interpretation" :-) at the time being that "'processed' doesn't mean
> 'inserted'"
> 
> I asked you whether EH insertion was allowed, and you didn't answer the
> question, even after asking multiple times (it should be in the audio
> recordings).
> 
> Now you say the above. When did you change your mind?

Huh?
I'm not saying anything about header insertion outside the context of 2460 being allowed or not.
I'm saying that in the context of implementing 2460 header insertion cannot come up.

> Simple:
> 
> 1) It was clear to everyone that EH insertion wasn't allowed.
> 
> 2) Some folks came with a funny interpretation, such that EHs could be
> inserted.
> 
> 3) Lots of supporters of EH-insertion (mostly from the same company)
> argued that "it wasn't forbidden". And this wasted lots of people's time.
> 
> So a clarification is warranted. That's it.
> 
> P.S.: And then folks wonder why people "give up"??
> 
> Me, I'm not wasting more time on this. It should be pretty clear to the
> IESG what's going on here.

Sorry, you lost me.

Ole