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

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 30 March 2017 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4751296BB; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LdtvjHf9RQIL; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F75D126B72; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f84so3829721ioj.0; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5qYrU/NaBvdG3XwLePJYfVqmimSjo+UJQcEH/XMgbeY=; b=nJ+V7CGYig4sXJhq5sb/CguI4C5pkzXXaOSPsvgdrJuOfcHXIUoLqB2RDEy4V93ILz v3MfJeyZ2Y+YUT5t2bhF8djdoxThfUeDPQ0t4hu0mVy51+m/dq74PXLXrUhJ7m83qzXY 5H0tRhW/WZFuFlKSQXujRJi6coctTtD0gg+z/p2xtszaaLklfVwrf2GjWAdXM1AHk3gz 4jmVaLVvFi3S6jeUukQKS1isC7dJtLwcw15qOp/77eNrAcf/3bggEyWelKdqwUvWY8Me UzND0H/tB8veB0PLTZNB/x+6T83kkreuMC5OHfXwX3LtDm2GkeCWl7oUF1Hcy7mhMf6M yWpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5qYrU/NaBvdG3XwLePJYfVqmimSjo+UJQcEH/XMgbeY=; b=sJDDUu2KFNrWzJIPsThwu4napnbPt0j3UEsjZrZQEOHXj9ZYhYXxSlNBjQvzHWEFdX gRZA+11WUIEyb/XNxbijJEWu1V3s8BOCEEWzfMLcJWZ0yWKC/D0nM5GFB1S/V+vNCZai 9S4Hzozn4Pp8mWs1QyR8yKxwncRiCShySfUxCFqoQYk2xJUMkqvAuKHwYigWRYDEC1oI sMsU4LfyaGks+AHTbkBsGIRpNDyVEe+0xhBIKTLrtVQ8CI+ZVOHJGARObcT0tSlMgk3w s03qFO8QjdsjqOvUG27ZP07C//Cs/14Bz2K1Rryne4saE2FWzNK3pw+0bEM+gbnYg9/e X82Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1zgmMqwjP5Msi5wRGHZcvXuii2qA+oJf2JNWcIBIONYEO+DCYnBdrBjEv74muJlA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id b198mr2307494iob.218.1490899957539; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ( [2001:67c:370:128:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id p6sm1845991iof.12.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>, Robert Raszuk <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Cc: "Leddy, John" <>, 6man WG <>, Suresh Krishnan <>, "" <>, IETF Discussion <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:52:44 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:52:40 -0000

On 31/03/2017 07:19, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:52:41 -0500,
> Robert Raszuk <> wrote:
>> 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.
> I don't get the "update" can start immediately once such a
> draft new proposal is available.  The update won't be formally
> completed until it gets some formal state like a standard track RFC,
> and it will take time, but that wouldn't necessarily mean a further
> work is "frozen"; 

Exactly. At this time the *quickest* way forward is to get 2460bis through
the IESG, progress the -extension-header-insertion draft ASAP, and in due
time do an early assignment request for draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

If you try that early assignment request today, it seems likely to fail.


> it's not very clear to me what this term means in
> this context, but it's quite common development takes place while the
> spec is being discussed as a draft, and it's also not uncommon some
> commercial operators even start deploying it.  On the other hand, even
> if we now agreed that rfc2460bis should explicitly allow such "further
> work", the discussion itself would take long and wouldn't be completed
> soon.
> But IMO it's irresponsible to leave the text ambiguous and let some
> other people misunderstand it, possibly even more casually and/or in
> the global Internet, for the comfort of some particular future work.
> I think we're now trying to help avoid the latest clarification in
> rfc2460bis to be interpreted as an "outright ban" of future updates
> while still trying to be responsible for the soundness of the global
> Internet.  In my understanding Brian's additional text is one such
> attempt (I also proposed text in that sense at the time of WGLC,
> although it wasn't adopted in the end).  If that text is still not
> enough we can discuss how to phrase it.  And, while I suspect people
> who wanted to keep the ambiguity will never be satisfied with the
> result as long as the added clarification remains, I believe that's a
> reasonable compromise to achieve a balance between being responsible
> and not (unintentionally) discouraging future updates.
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------