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

Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> Fri, 17 February 2017 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.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 61DEA1295A6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:16:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 7Pt8VRAFLeVi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72374129588 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id w20so46914699qtb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:16:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pHcVRkitm0nmJdk9/ifxY6HrCpJoO6tGoK7iVKebC1k=; b=ig23lHXKoNroQRotxKYO+SjKrhOL1tuyHie6sYli1ZNr3PBrez/A/tHmmZ88QuVWEv IlYw/2xus32ZJLvDD2WXxEp6DOZGzCpV9YkZ9k8RJX3kkl9IjKV8wXqVJ6lyzLqUfVfj 6iBszGhdP3U/MXf5zzcgCEnyqXUncvci/rY2daJX0Y8YVl8wFWNFhsBrDREzVlxv7BVO joHQ9UsyvYR8xc0baUvG3tcN108Ahj8zkP0bAxRwPLvA3yQaLNpvODbrJoqkWVCbGU/F NU4aRPrbmIFFnl5EDAqVoh814/UaHLbGHCww86KdbYaRyKD+dFgOjAGnL7l+zZdEwfCs 9qmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pHcVRkitm0nmJdk9/ifxY6HrCpJoO6tGoK7iVKebC1k=; b=ZfMQyat2ye59Pw6hUFp/mAhIOcHDjvz7pY0jwe9oNF4PMxuX79ymzF4+dCnAQBh7+W o31ddRRgbt+kZAT3EMTLSDtEjUVCHmFXSuKQPOQ3mX7FV6ZBvgh8ovwOi6jegarkV6LD pXre0oPxaxlHncAz6sQ3jAMX1S8t3OEQF9xfQ4bsHowMUj8FPHEEayw0XFN25htrBO55 U2kMkH2aA72IszTJ4nYfWpaHm3lwdNHBFJM3oXnBOj+WuERjlqYwoXzNIZJw+5Qra9ZY xuhTQExwC75VDR6umL968fUIp45kTZ9FXpU2gv/nvl/ImBwIj8WrQW/PFDGyaTrItqCr htJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kU7A7/JzfaOEvofZbYyR93lUhCVLYr59CPPVr4ZDU3cp7+5RFZxMFWsOIZKI5khw==
X-Received: by 10.237.37.71 with SMTP id w7mr8474725qtc.287.1487355390297; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:16:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 87-7-200.lacnic.net.uy ([2001:13c7:7001:7000:e1bb:95d3:2cc:220a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 136sm6938198qkg.34.2017.02.17.10.16.28 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:16:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <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> <8637862F-DAE8-4520-9997-F4DD61629EA7@sobco.com>
From: Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f685b229-c187-81a0-852d-779aa5fe0f97@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:16:26 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8637862F-DAE8-4520-9997-F4DD61629EA7@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/q_XqWx3s0Tjo7jVNxA2u9pR9CgU>
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 18:16:33 -0000


El 17/2/17 a las 2:14 p.m., Scott O. Bradner escribió:
>> On Feb 17, 2017, at 9:12 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>>
>> Fernando,
>>
>> It is a simple logical consequence.
>>
>> Middleboxes do not exist in the IPv6 architecture.
> firewalls do not exist in IPv6????
> load balancers do not exist in IPv6???
> content redirectors do not exist in IPv6???
> …

I was about to ask the same question

> Scott
>
>> 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