Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Ole,

Correct me if I am missing someting but the entire debate is not about
describing or not header insertion.

I am under assumption that originating hosts still can legally insert it.

It is all about to modify EH in flight - right ? Moreover concerns raised
are about side effects of it like MTU .. not lack of instructions on how to
insert, modify or remove EH elements.

So what exactly are you expecting WG to deliver as next step if 2460bis
goes fwd ? Is detecting the max MTU on end to end path even in 6man's
charter ?

Cheers,
R.

On Mar 30, 2017 15:48, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> > Ok so till a new document updates 2460bis any further work on EHs is
> frozen as it would reference 2460bis with new text. That was my main point.
> >
> > And what current EH implementations are supposed to do in the mean time
> ? Would IANA allocate codepoints for EH work before 2460bis is formally
> updated which in the current IETF speed is easy 2+years ?
> >
> > Note that without the proposed clarification none of the above obstacles
> exist.
>
> Write a document describing the mechanism using header insertion. That
> document should cover the issues raised with header insertion in general. I
> don't think the document should update 2460bis. The general restriction
> still stands.
>
> Best regards,
> Ole
>