IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt>

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 22 May 2019 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 E8DF9120221 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 10:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 D0DJzTMa3mGD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 10:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F94D120163 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 10:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local ([IPv6:2001:7f8:18:7000:0:0:0:9]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x4MHlChK032409 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 May 2019 18:47:13 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host [IPv6:2001:7f8:18:7000:0:0:0:9] claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-19.txt>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <20160428004904.25189.43047.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <588C586F-C303-418E-8D26-477C4B37CF92@gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <3376f5aa-4589-69cd-991c-46d0997a98d4@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 17:47:10 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.17
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <588C586F-C303-418E-8D26-477C4B37CF92@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/17SPpwPWktg-mv4B-3YUqQjJORA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 22 May 2019 17:47:19 -0000

Bob Hinden wrote on 22/05/2019 13:39:
> The chairs believe it is ready to advance, but given the number of
> changes and the time that elapsed, a new w.g. last call is warranted.
> Please review the new document.

leaving the AH situation unresolved looks fine in the context of having 
a flag to mark each EH as mutable / non-mutable.  No further need to 
bike-shed there.

The rest of the document falls into the category of nuclear power plant 
complexity in terms of direct technical details and downstream 
consequences and applications, but from a helicopter view, it looks 
sensible, thorough and well thought.

Is it ok for a document like this to specify the registration request 
procedure in section 8? This seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email