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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 02/09/2017 07:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> On 10/02/2017 10:30, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 02/09/2017 07:36 AM, [e-mail] 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.

"It has always been clear.... till these proposals on EH insertion arised".

Since some people didn't "deduce" it from the current text, that's a
clear indication that a clarification is warranted.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492