Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

Suresh Krishnan <> Sat, 11 February 2017 06:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F35712946F; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:11:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h3gDHAB80b8J; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC28612944C; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n125so4154262vke.3; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:11:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8KzNrGWVx/RP5HFg/oFwWhAt/41VhhYaKedxm5zados=; b=uGl6V5ZX2mJ1Po9G0Y4aEmcbYWpaUQsE27eoQ8LFZCY7iM5n0dwkyeRl8o2UTRFNgw 4lfBFCnPVBzYP+AA+bCwrVftewjUyxWPWvV0iGrU+259WR2coADp6O1qC64pHJ3eIyYk HMagyBnVPb8hWRLN1eDA7RJPSSdNNI9vXCOTUcTYqAMTV292Hq01pBbUBKhx/nLxvwhH yO8Fk0qdqxADEcZAuKVGMCxqV3DzyaKeFWJe6bi0sehFKqRJ3TMOBPO12ylaQQiyUQti LyL+yz+YHLf6fspnyy51HwuM1Phv6rUTGBoZMirFViOn5YNVwpd1bYyFYx7ycybV7Fr9 D/lw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8KzNrGWVx/RP5HFg/oFwWhAt/41VhhYaKedxm5zados=; b=PTxFvmMXyz5dU3rDemxD03Y3gon1qmR0REQ8bv6OceBCwgiZrFYWnoY46S84NV3t5R kTvNa94pi7cWaSnCaCbSZdXBLSOATF4uv3sx3yRK6g0TeuhUe9NkdbFEA1+fMI5UWmbu wCH87xksuY2m6C9FomG5jCMzFZAm85kyMTdv/q5zB0RmLUOYFpp2NFKaSGh6mYY7iZ5+ 4MYMF5N7D/KLsliXFvMTuHLRpAN5IuElcDtKUumgEp3BpkUt6Mr7mrG4y8v9d+szV8Fn 7DzxCBMvA47VAK72g9BQ6zwlEi4j4ehiEoYS+EFXmzwadN2eJuXSyvebv5V/OZG1ZB/4 +eUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n0qHIQuMe+Aru/YUCWUhrjWd+K74G370C/ay/eKucCgq8TMVWyVET+drF97o3XTRQFU9YJpECb7mX2Ww==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x15mr5476181vkd.130.1486793468754; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:11:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:11:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 01:11:07 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114264d68f42b205483b14a9
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF Discussion list <>, Pete Resnick <>, Fernando Gont <>,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:11:11 -0000

Hi Jinmei,

On Feb 10, 2017 1:23 PM, "神明達哉" <> wrote:

At Thu, 9 Feb 2017 18:30:11 -0300,
Fernando Gont <> wrote:

While I largely agree with Fernando on everything he said, I have to
admit most of the points are just repeated from the 6man discussion,
and won't get us anywhere new by discussing these again at this point.
I guess the only new input for the IETF last call is this:

> 2) However, some folks came up with proposals to insert EH, on the basis
> that "RFC2460 does not explicitly ban EH insertion". If there's people
> arguing that, we clearly need to make this clear in the spec.
> 3) There was a consensus call, yes. When the call was made on the
> mailing-list, the vast majority of supporters of "let's keep the
> ambiguity" were folks from the same company as "2)". I have no idea if
> this changes (or not) "consensus"... but this is clearly an important
> datapoint.

Although I don't want to point a finger at particular people or
organizations without an evidence, I guess not a small number of 6man
participants (not only those who explicitly spoke up here) suspected
that the decision process was biased with the influence of a large and
powerful organization and the process and resulting "consensus" was
not really a fair one.  And I'm not an exception to it - in fact, it
was so unbelievable to me that we can't clarify an ambiguity even when
we were also open for future extensions, that I couldn't think of
other reasons than a company agenda.

Of course, it's quite possible that it was just a coincidence that
many people with the same organization genuinely thought we should
leave it ambiguous while many others strongly thought we should
clarify it but few (if not no) people from that organization supported
the clarification.  But I don't think we can prove it either way.

But as Fernando said, I believe this point (and that several, and
arguably more, participants suspected it) should be included in making
the decision at the IESG and at the IETF last call.  And, whatever the
decision, it would be more productive to move on after that and use
our time for some other things.

I am guessing that the people who spoke up during the WG process to not put
in an outright prohibition would make their case along with their arguments
here as well. We are only a week into a four week long last call.