Re: Possible ambiguity of Hop-by-Hop Options header processing text in draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 20 February 2017 16:48 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEAA129559; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:48:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6cOOFYNomMe0; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:48:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (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 800D5129465; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:48:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.189] (cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com [172.250.240.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1KGmL64008687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Possible ambiguity of Hop-by-Hop Options header processing text in draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CACL_3VHC3sx5=E4uk3+6-LR-JqXXMwF4cmMuJH-goipBUDX7fw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <5f1201fa-cfb1-9ea0-0fbf-21cacc5bf224@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:48:19 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VHC3sx5=E4uk3+6-LR-JqXXMwF4cmMuJH-goipBUDX7fw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0Os6UQaSi3PxFGjWaHFtXy-0kNs>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:48:42 -0000
On 2/19/2017 3:14 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > ... > On that basis I would like to suggest changing the note as follows: > > NOTE: While [RFC2460] required that all nodes must examine and > process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that nodes > along a packet's delivery path, other than the source and destination > nodes, will examine and process the Hop-by-Hop Options header only if > explicitly configured to do so. > It would be useful to be more clear about destination - e.g., as indicated up the destination IP address. I.e., AFAICT an intermediate stop of a "loose source route" (using the routing header) should be able to alter the HBH headers at will. Joe