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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 64F7F129409; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:55:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 M1zN3aS9Wfbl; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x244.google.com (mail-pf0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::244]) (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 55F3512945F; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id e4so1077888pfg.0; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:55:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qdiANBhIoelzfEgV7yU3YVYocdoD72vozdqoP1HAIDA=; b=GZrPYQoYtWgHU9MN8s8sxHBmYuPGUL1gOaQNK42HzEAYokE6CXo8+YH2+O3WeEwyC2 2UlnC2ECboU1QiBbWLBcJOryBDiYDLvJv6fcgRd8+kmnRVBEmE54OffOIpdqpTpVUPTH GEx/QwDcM2x/ruTjnna5/VfCsR2rwyUF4/PgPuKAH1uPKQZ51sHl4m08G9mUfjCJ7wZX 4CBdFVVwo8B8fTqZRjaitUq+iQhcLhesypekQ+WVt39X0HrSi3ne8BtG4zSA704BXi5T TpaJXh0X0rx4nopRVVkbvCxG/oMZw4Y/3g4Y+nO0qYPUqbWjFOrMO2bwFWUir7JdFGsU JPHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qdiANBhIoelzfEgV7yU3YVYocdoD72vozdqoP1HAIDA=; b=B4QszF2fLGH2Thr0xMvgUbnQs2bS/q1OzfAXaB1Yzxzw/KP4lX3rqEFNiSPxJ/n0W5 B6EJTptcuePt5yu4dNAkr4BsWV+EwdeDcuH0hQeF52WgOrtHS8O8NS76Ow+SVI0qAvvH oH+d563EHxA9TKvJJYACrP5Zr1qF3YQAjhzgzeaQsFix5qrQd0t233drJ3qz+kYIZimw nPAtivF14x1s6nsmPgE5VTyjDwxzV5ow2joA1qB7jSAZ4obsHvunojAAIecjq/c3wBCs 0kQQheVLf/sON4dxHSnhCxrMW3MkKAQqBcByyLClwJukdefLynUqkuWZM5IafPV/QNtG w25w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n/XF6rQdyPtYa9aeHKeLgPvj+sTuV3tuo9MZtr+CbAD0n4rZNo5YeAjPMOVyKy+w==
X-Received: by 10.84.128.33 with SMTP id 30mr7260769pla.128.1486680922827; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:55:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7ac3:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7ac3:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 88sm31453517pfr.41.2017.02.09.14.55.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:55:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, otroan@employees.org
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com> <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org> <8D401C5B-C3C3-4378-9DFA-BF4ACC8E9DAF@qti.qualcomm.com> <D2D907D5-84B4-43BB-9103-F87DA9F122EB@employees.org> <33DC7B74-D240-4FF2-A8FF-C9C5A66809EE@qti.qualcomm.com> <1179DE45-3971-44A1-9630-28F76D2D652D@employees.org> <2ea64b3c-d69d-6b6c-cb04-fe63727a8bee@si6networks.com> <23C46409-337C-468D-BCDC-34027BB56CAD@employees.org> <30715b9e-e9b7-320e-f9e2-fc3f64615d5c@si6networks.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <75774ea9-86e8-7353-b4fc-58cad402ffe0@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:55:26 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30715b9e-e9b7-320e-f9e2-fc3f64615d5c@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DRf70PODAbgHpzvlPT2cQRi4ia0>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, 6man@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 22:55:24 -0000

Hi Fernando,

First let me say that I though Ole's summary was fair. One comment below:

On 10/02/2017 10:30, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 07:36 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>> Fernando,
>>
>> Pete asked me to summarize the objections to option 1 - banning header insertion explicitly.
>> I responded with the set of objections I've heard for all options, as I couldn't see a straightforward way of only summarising for option 1.
>>
>> I don't understand your message.
>> Do you disagree with the summary itself? Are there arguments missing?
>> Or is your grief that the I have distilled the arguments wrongly or put them in a bad light?
>>
>> Or are you just rehashing your position on the issue?
> 
> I think that some points are not as clear as they should be:
> 
> 1) The current state of affairs with respect to IPv6 EH insertion is
> that insertion is forbidden. It has always been clear to everyone.

I don't think it has. In fact, that's the whole point: some people
have *not* deduced that rule from the RFC2460/RFC1883 wording.

   Brian

> 
> 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.
> 
> 4) Given "1)" and "2)" above, it should be evident that the spec needs
> to be crystal-clear on this topic.
> 
> 5) Arguing in favor of keeping ambiguity in a spec that has generated
> 600+ messages in the very group that standardizes the protocol pretty
> much reads like "Let's publish a lousy spec!". And I think that would be
> very bad. We're talking about something that is at the core of the
> protocol, essentially "Is IPv6 an end-to-end protocol?". I would expect
> rfc2460bis to answer such a very basic question, and I'm curious how we
> could move a spec to (full) Standard without answering such a basic
> question.
> 
> 
> There's no grief at all. If anything, just a concern that some of these
> items might not be clear enough, and, in particular that without the
> datapoint in "3)", folks might get a misleading interpretation of the
> discussions that happened in th wg. "3" could be read pretty much like
> "all folks from the same company that has a proposal to insert EHs what
> insertion of EHs to be allowed".
> 
> Thanks,
>