Re: What if? [was Re: Extension Header Insertion]

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 10/12/19 14:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[....]
>>
>> A RH is meant to convey some sort of information about the path that a
>> packet can traverse. So two SRHs would mean that the same packet should
>> follow two different paths, at the same time. That doesn't seem to be
>> much sense to me.
> 
> I agree. That's why I am seriously asking whether we should recall
> draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 from the RFC Editor in order
> to resolve this. Either (a) there MUST be at most one SRH in a packet,
> or (b) the semantics and conflict resolution for multiple SRHs need to
> be specified.
> 
> At the moment we (6MAN) are on track to publish a Proposed Standard RFC
> that leaves this ambiguous, and SPRING has a draft in WGLC that assumes (b).

FWIW, I don't mind doing that.

That said, it would seem to me that some folks are operating in a mode
where there are twisting specs to mean whatever  they want them to mean.
And there's no sensible amount of energy that can mitigate that other
than relevant  chairs and ADs trying to steer the discussions back on
the "sensible"/serious track.

P.S.: e.g. It seems the same group of folks that had argued that there
was ambiguity in rfc2460 wrt header insertion are now arguing that if
you are in the segment list of a RH, you are allowed to insert/remove
EHs. Seriously?
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492