Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D3D3A07D8; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:58:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 k_WI16vjd5oz; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 0D5833A07B4; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:58:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=42DqsvJqK3v+7gBhYrI4VPsSigShX1zuObwbymbdjQQ=; b=P+PlGD+TQBycH4D05/LcGW3y/ hbkYE8xh554s/eXoAPMkL6k5rUNt1BE9shILlLk+gsvhJeXwjVjRHOM/8ak912UviZ0DvINGfLF2W 4yixUxw8ohdHgfTJiKmTgrVPkqNg6iGQ4AS4Zzg3mdchNNOYMEkKQ7rU+LUiSwpihPitbTFWIqQo+ DmiX+UDg54l+6dEIRWkfJ75SQHa5Vl7jN3mNnk7x5TCOkkhGs1c8vtG/PPEmT3VgKxwaWd/1odCLI 2ROGk7IDyl1ncp3F+ZJ1qtvK/eRcS3qCzS6dNI7kN3sIDa0SGm/ttQY4sj38RYc0578GL6R1xhEvs jKKEtrBWw==;
Received: from [::1] (port=45028 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1j7S6k-001GYE-0U; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:58:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_473daeef39d403ec4f4aa6356147da86"
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:58:17 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <35324c05-e1de-0186-36e3-081648c1c539@gont.com.ar>
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwg+4xMv=EKLfvmZMCgrQz31+38Fv0bYKeJ0fTB5vbXiaw@mail.gmail.com> <35324c05-e1de-0186-36e3-081648c1c539@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <8b61e504637776cdf1c25540d7ad7d4c@strayalpha.com>
X-Sender: touch@strayalpha.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.7
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/J4PfEbltu8rPscrnEy1g1KvA3bQ>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:58:30 -0000

On 2020-02-27 14:50, Fernando Gont wrote:

> ...
> I'm not being purist. I'm just arguing that we probably can do better than simply rubber-stamping any hacks a vendor with big pockets may bring up.

That's a refreshing perspective. 

Refreshing, but confusing - given you promoted "standardizing" vendor
deviations (many arguably bugs) from TCP in TCPM. 

So I'm confused - what do you think drives our standards now? Design or
implementations (including bugs)? 

Joe