IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Inserting Extension Headers or not [was rfc2460bis question ]

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 06 May 2016 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 A79A012D14E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2016 17:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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] 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 0xxAuE8ybyc8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2016 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (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 3B8CA12D118 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 May 2016 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id t10so172890429ywa.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 May 2016 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=NgkJ/ZTB1eZl78yS60iefdmLDTbwA6j+o5MsVlc+91c=; b=0V3q0y5HKfioSB1lmT4UZ/ENCB6uI8+C5mzeCt5zxT+96Kubq48/BoBzsSihqzXu+1 OB7EoXzhuLz93XBvPQct4aAtsspSGRY9e7+iiujGRi2khrrYJ/jRGd3mL5VCxB+zU4Jc UFAu3qjnlkDt4w/GtAv8P+NJFDmyGIQ/tPJlNRCfJK5UuEJ1se403BEsgoWe6kI48XDl gJogbEvcKB3ZmvmM3ywiwtij5LoIdq2dOtblykipDFTNlHDk1gabeJSLxss21dYL80gx K94M4tobozbBezEmpN0iSLPKm6IJgr91ak1zcns+3KpV++bqqJTwNK/e6ZolZAgMUdsI Hu0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=NgkJ/ZTB1eZl78yS60iefdmLDTbwA6j+o5MsVlc+91c=; b=bX40EtStF/OjesY/F0IB4/PqX3eoIWT0sOAn+JkX5/WLIyTBOqv7VoyZDSQPfSzth+ 7rVm7WDkF3G3I9Yxy+BOj2GWt5V5xQqgdapO4fqbe/0wXyNaZj8OZDKF7OISdhQxkP/l c1OqB/HQKUYDFZ+bHaG1p13bpYoPGk37AAZxzjqmR+WBpMxEr1WA3A9KoY6hI9WMCfMc zhFrvKcF1OtfJ+oLZZMbPsxMfKOQYAGt2mPxLemge5jzLW2WN2lBNzwrChTOAwHAOkC/ k3z2auChSDKukFD/DlMKi0Z+OU003u+rvqf/agLpSJk9EYrZT37l4QykJBq73NO2yt68 XuWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW9WhLVMp6e3RijBkj3F1ZLOfrJFgrP3L9N9AxXY88i7tIhuYwwAExF/z9erFHC+Q==
X-Received: by 10.129.128.199 with SMTP id q190mr4388888ywf.319.1462493566565; Thu, 05 May 2016 17:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.24] (c-71-202-18-198.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [71.202.18.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z20sm7203850ywd.44.2016.05.05.17.12.44 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 May 2016 17:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Inserting Extension Headers or not [was rfc2460bis question ]
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_603FA054-F36C-41C7-9598-64A2B33D45F7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <71e44c36-031e-3304-4b5d-2cd707351ce2@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 17:12:42 -0700
Message-Id: <D3355E7D-F3C5-43C4-B601-0E2379C30F65@gmail.com>
References: <E330D833-9CE9-4CEB-9989-26B6E69AA362@gmail.com> <BLUPR05MB1985CE36404529EA59429C92AE650@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <17698869-50BC-42EB-AE49-62246080A374@gmail.com> <d3de0ead-6cd3-d0ba-9b54-de224dab2b1b@gmail.com> <5722B3FA.1090707@si6networks.com> <AC76D0C3-CE50-4CB8-8AFD-7DB754A1563D@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zovzjBpPzs+sp-38kDWJZk5widU2DNDKirfYFc2uBkPQ@mail.gmail.com> <71e44c36-031e-3304-4b5d-2cd707351ce2@gmail.com>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/GozNbDbomE7UwhFwM8C9wt5_e4s>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
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: Fri, 06 May 2016 00:12:50 -0000

Brian,

> On May 2, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 03/05/2016 10:37, Mark Smith wrote:
> ...
>>>   The contents of an Extension header or Option in an Extension header
>>>   may be modified if this is permitted by the definition of the
>>>   Extension header or option.
>>> 
>> 
>> The thing I would criticise about this text is that it would not discourage
>> silent and unattributable changes.
> 
> The sentence is actually a no-op anyway; it really states the obvious.
> A slightly stronger version would be:
> 
> The contents of an Extension header or Option in an Extension header
> must not be modified unless this is permitted by the definition of the
> Extension header or option.

Since we do allow Extension headers and Options to be modified, I have a slight preference for the previous text.  It is, as you say” stating the obvious.  Seems like saying this here, right after the text about inserting and deleting, makes sense.

Thanks,
Bob

> 
> but I am not sure that is a clarification of RFC 2460; it seems a
> bit like a new rule.
> 
>     Brian

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status