Re: comments on draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling
"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Thu, 12 November 2015 01:53 UTC
Return-Path: <heard@pobox.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01241A033A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:53:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.078
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 RQ3yodDSM0Yi for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:53:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com [208.72.237.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39CAB1A032D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:53:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7932B12A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:53:04 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; s=sasl; bh=j08QIDmMQzKPgwPUdWDpm4Te4cU=; b=SxtXms dXDEssSJvBNguk/vMhW317PIfRYXsW3TmGx38+ALMhIlNhhdGj9Ld1POHd8p2vwR aZmJzBACMYbl7oZmIMtm40S+K/8CMu6cc0riLbMHgY2jtQxHRil3tpK12kQ2Gss/ /Ej59GC3s7WPljyaAaxXI2qvO0lfMZhwU6X40=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=QqASd5iysW3pxmNEAiJhO4jjNaPc5Csh smkza2aPvEuCz+Eoie9XgjSoPabLqhDoLZrrB5c6Jhh189IDfmDme2vJQzawv3pQ Rm9Hdv7XLa+cpCcYP/334+KmyQTvBBeW/zh7UcNX3VOemTyPB2KJm4QxH14wndzM EpbJdrw5POE=
Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B39872B129 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:53:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com (unknown [209.85.214.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B2122B128 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:53:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: by obdgf3 with SMTP id gf3so36286278obd.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:53:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.182.176.102 with SMTP id ch6mr6914055obc.31.1447293183783; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:53:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.201.17 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:52:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <633973DC-027D-441F-A7AF-BD86D4551655@employees.org>
References: <CACL_3VHXVScv+5Arja-bP1bV-1hWQJK2vO3SP-JyjgoAj4mtzg@mail.gmail.com> <633973DC-027D-441F-A7AF-BD86D4551655@employees.org>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:52:44 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VF0SnS4=wBaSStM4aQURKPGg3A3hdPgsVJ1aPWUAb3=Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VF0SnS4=wBaSStM4aQURKPGg3A3hdPgsVJ1aPWUAb3=Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: comments on draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1cd361b1c6a05244e3423"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1CEA4004-88E0-11E5-90F7-6BD26AB36C07-06080547!pb-smtp0.pobox.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ImcOJ2U0BEr9pl6wKN741XP6vYE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 12 Nov 2015 01:53:08 -0000
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:48 PM, <otroan@employees.org> wrote: > I would be perfectly fine with the work on header injection continuing > outside of the context of RFC2460bis. If that means having 6man endorse standards-track (or even experimental) documents that permit the length of an IPv6 packet to be changed by an intermediate system without adding another IPv6 header, then I'm afraid I don't agree. Rather than repeat previous discussion let me just point to this message by Brian Carpenter: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg22830.html Note that the objections to header injection apply equally to options whose length can change in transit. I'd like to see the 6man WG weigh in against both. //cmh