Re: [ippm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: (with COMMENT)

<nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com> Fri, 28 April 2017 04:04 UTC

Return-Path: <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A975E129BC6 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.391
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=2.309, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.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 002bCimsqULC for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm30-vm1.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm30-vm1.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [98.136.216.192]) (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 87B03129BC7 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1493352100; bh=p0TdsH1TjFRnAYbHUufS2y3PUsKRn+YAFUZj5WfChlU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:References:From:Subject; b=MqAZ+8EgpVumNGXs6kcdBgS5/x+WNJKYxaHZdqhM0QQjXn8DvUbhS3v6Rl6TrCYLsWofswjuJSG7cujzYD0i5UX9Xe+4kKJaLMhnH4y9oDix9Gfrzki3VCKpLG3y5ERMKBjAkyk0D1zAW6kTF9C2Majw/X9JNp71iBk40YvYH6wPhIRtqprUtamjThQiXJoLyLdU2c3FyGfW6xmHqmIpiWOBWQBFP1Fll95/eJ2nHQ5evRyHYeJmYCmTSw4+tLvOtB0RAd5v4kKemJgjAk4+3GEq/vXM1ZmfmiYDD1ACCZFgf8Yf0OfGkUJRyd+2yy9ZNf45nnyPXmXtIPnxXxxF1g==
Received: from [216.39.60.180] by nm30.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Apr 2017 04:01:40 -0000
Received: from [98.137.12.197] by tm16.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Apr 2017 04:01:40 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1005.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Apr 2017 04:01:40 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 891091.27031.bm@omp1005.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: siJSFL8VM1mD8A_Iscu2q17FYKP6LBIEPJCOG7xzTCrkuWKO9o_z5QeMlrnUDM_ 3xhS3C5PaY5LMbyL_R_qIE6fImqTpwuQlGgLcQrZ9xtn82znxwjUGLD6ff3b67HW33ruGswUQ7tA qvBgfcOD0muI8j96GmDg3gEnsv1YqCN3HQydmQyXS7nlg9nV9FNuELbQr2cMNXhrRt29DglEoUvO dpSG.1u1q38hGlqC9Q2.CvLfc.M5RZ4RCspxuFYGByR1OF9hDoj..0DYBdOG3iVlvJbaP.xDNW0p iopIe4IFpdSajLn0tKVlB6V1xnlY501L6v.CtUP8nmVtbQ72.2k24EPHFmEMZkRNzVuk3YAMEw1z Z34a0yPdX8Sp1eJex0ll8mx34gLnEdWWQV7TINjE7.w232xIr59Zc0R7CaHrWS9JInrf2lHr45hx wU0aThWIZ3bwUuTtPvrQOwKYFN9VumKQZa5pL_rNWWYiJ3HnyuxYG2WrMOeLuPMqY1OiO9Zck3HQ amz1_Ma6pOD061zTZiUjVTM0MkEng_xCe4Q--
Received: from jws300008.mail.gq1.yahoo.com by sendmailws137.mail.gq1.yahoo.com; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 04:01:39 +0000; 1493352099.734
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 04:01:39 +0000
From: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
Reply-To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, Bill Cerveny <ietf@wjcerveny.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, jiangsheng@huawei.com
Message-ID: <554038332.13283997.1493352099497@mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <554038332.13283997.1493352099497.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.9408 YahooMailBasic Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/57.0.2987.133 Safari/537.36
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/I6yMp_7V7gbT7A9kdJe7Zpedo5Q>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 04:04:09 -0000

On Wed, 4/12/17, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

 Subject: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: (with COMMENT)
 To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
 Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option@ietf.org, "Al Morton" <acmorton@att.com>, "Bill Cerveny" <ietf@wjcerveny.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, ippm@ietf.org, jiangsheng@huawei.com
 Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2017, 11:30 AM
 
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: No Objection
 
>  Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option/
 
 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
> No objection to the publication of this document, but it's important to get Warren's COMMENT addressed:

> This document defines a new IPv6 Destination Option. Adding this to a packet pushes the L4 information further out, potentially making it unavailable to the forwarding engine /
> ACLs. This is not just a theoretical issue - see RFC7872 for real world examples. This means that if I connect to a remote machine and enable this, I may lock myself out
> of the machine (return packets may not make it back to me); this should be noted (perhaps by expanding on section 1.6).
 

This was the text that was agreed on with Warren.   Please let me know if you agree.

Current Text
 ----------------

1.6 IPv6 Transition Technologies

In the path to full implementation of IPv6, transition technologies such as translation or tunneling may be employed.  The PDM header is not expected to work in such scenarios.  It is likely that an
 IPv6 packet containing PDM will be dropped if using IPv6 transition technologies.

New Text
------------

1.6 Full Support of IPv6 Functionality

In the path to full implementation of native IPv6, transition technologies such as translation or tunneling may be employed.  The PDM header may not work in such scenarios.  It is likely that an
IPv6 packet containing PDM will be dropped if using IPv6 transition technologies.

It is also possible that some devices in the network may not correctly handle multiple IPv6 Extension Headers, including the IPv6 Destination Option.  For example, adding the PDM header to a packet
may push the layer 4 information to a point in the packet where it is not visible to filtering logic, and may be dropped.  This kind of situation is expected to become rare over time.


Thanks,

Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
(831) 659-8360