IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-han-6man-in-band-signaling-for-transport-qos-00.txt

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Tue, 17 October 2017 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
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 0FF6013302A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 XQZhbtIk88WR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (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 0A452132355 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id z19so6280203qtg.11 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3nIEWLiYudkIMl82bKVvKn2QN3Tol4fVm3dWkzT+dF8=; b=hRgUAHd7/3xnlN25M+LwH02bQkZAMTOpWstF0/zXhCUt6zggCJZYMCOAzbqOQd9onT mBZW5wbLeCG/X52BBgHSZgYCLb/vt1b8wtt1T5mouDIA79yfk1mKS0OQCBO9zhzQLiv1 iLejPKV0L5JroGwjQ5qS1NRloPcEMOQiv+5grZXnsAlFQ+MglRFrXmafjlS5UZOmr6gK YM4n54LVbl6deAKGQzCvPUuqWPnSjOmXEBZUlbdS53+D57Vpv8fkB3lRa5vXy0Cj+5il OErOT3Y3H4wP9VERA/29GagAn5IsTqoqIawtL6PNHUXPiCuVb8q+HJg7TfuckzIqaEcp EI2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3nIEWLiYudkIMl82bKVvKn2QN3Tol4fVm3dWkzT+dF8=; b=QDbkKHHIdI02DFtQIhTPVtE3p0q/LsU86z1EYDaOMofuA3Q9C2C0QzFvk+1rGMLaEc 0q6EjzruaDGMUb0SpzSRBqEX2qhH+pQ/Px86d8L1wdCudjXNWphEwC0R/VsjGAag/6l8 YqyB2jOUPisF7pJBqYERmwbZn60jjMl1noorjSyDz/56FFzi1nv4Vta5cIWX8XpaM8+b 67NSOAKrU8LfkWyAQoh1v0WBZCtL/Cc4w7Rb6zfpcO3mRTd+OE7pC2Q6CII5SiyY7IXq U7zVgxcG9WUWBDoFeLhu5N8pXnom6veiRQcY+pe7CWkh9ecsst/pL/YaZz51nj2+ivYG 1E+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXklkwjZ26RoZCF/wSp20iqkUINx0Fz8UiOklDe23uBg8iYBT0K B9V5toK7SFJYU1Z/c6rgZEJTShJgPrBMgmyDJub4fw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDkb+hv2izhKq8VsN6KgJoEDZJmb5/mmbi2jQZfpeMrvb5TbC5hfvlQFKMdjbVYT5fewwLVGh4G4Xza6NIkiU0=
X-Received: by 10.200.53.89 with SMTP id z25mr22206315qtb.58.1508271402114; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.54.4 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5201440c-445c-4923-3460-86df7e1179da@gmail.com>
References: <150774513036.24791.2138264254901122467@ietfa.amsl.com> <cc11634a-b5a2-88b9-f36f-82b3fd9d8d70@gmail.com> <1D30AF33624CDD4A99E8C395069A2A162CD734B2@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <a4da4b26-6402-ad0d-a5f5-5bddc192b8f7@gmail.com> <4E40E3EF-B0E5-490E-BFF2-0511D97E9E80@employees.org> <5201440c-445c-4923-3460-86df7e1179da@gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:16:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34pjjbzP_6LHn=k6vcfEfcNUK=uv-3tkBvQjeEYkGfQEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-han-6man-in-band-signaling-for-transport-qos-00.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6oNNdjscP22ZInKkHdlTm2-KAig>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:16:44 -0000

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/10/2017 20:11, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>> [LH] The propose does not introduce new hop-by-hop option header, we only introduce new option carried in the existing hop-by-hop option header,
>>>
>>> Yes, that is exactly what the paragraph from RFC8200 means: it
>>> says "New hop-by-hop options are not recommended".
>>
>> Blindly reciting rules without also understanding and explaining the intent leads to unintended consequences.
>>
>> In this particular case, where every hop along the path would need to support it, then that's the exact use case for the hop by hop header.
>
> Of course. But that in itself isn't the strong justification that
> RFC8200 calls for, IMHO.
>
I believe an experimental HbH option number could be use to develop
the protocol and help provide the justification if an assignment is
needed.

Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email