Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt

Fernando Gont <> Tue, 26 November 2019 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC711200DF for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 13:46:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mYDpBls_r5vH for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 13:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A66191200C1 for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 13:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19C9F86202; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:46:29 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt
To: Ole Troan <>, Sander Steffann <>
Cc: 6man <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:46:24 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:46:35 -0000

On 23/11/19 07:23, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> What's the rationale for this document being "Informational"?
>>> Documenting how folks are breaking the spec?
>> For that I think an Independent Submission is the only appropriate one. Anything in any IETF stream should either stick to existing specs or explicitly update them.
> A whole session at the IETF meeting in Singapore was spent on the topic of header insertion in general and in the context of SR.
> Progress was made.
> I would encourage you to review that session.
> Video recording is here:

I will review the session. That said, in the context that "decisions are
made on the mailing-list", and in the hope of fairness, shouldn't the
list be polled in that respect?

> My reading of the working group session was to proceed work on both drafts. With neither draft updating RFC8200.
> Let's focus on communicating and understanding the positions of each "camp" and proceed with the technical arguments.
> I would discouarge "process arguments".
> If you believe those are necessary, please take those with the chairs and AD and we can summarize to the group.

My basic question/comment about process is, particularly given the
amount of discussion that the topic has received on the list: why take
action on the topic on the meeting, without polling the list?

I'm also curious about the rationale of working on a document that
violates a core spec. It looks to me as "we didn't get consensus to
update the spec, so now we just document how we're ignoring the spec".
Given the history we have had on this topic, I don't see the process
(making a decision at the session without polling the list) nor the
outcome (essentially publishing a doc that violates the spec as
informational) as a sensible outcome.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492