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

"Leddy, John" <> Sun, 12 February 2017 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A83612945D; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:05:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4HgiFchWh_3B; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1697126D74; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:05:53 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 60721c4c-61fff70000007eaf-74-58a0ea4efafd
Received: from ( []) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA256 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (SMTP Gateway) with SMTP id F4.BE.32431.E4AE0A85; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:05:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:05:49 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe12:e268]) by ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe12:e268%19]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:05:49 -0500
From: "Leddy, John" <>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>, Suresh Krishnan <>, =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Thread-Index: AQHSfOX4BXu17vCOlEW5Zvc01+W9PaFVw50AgAEB4YCAAInqAIAH3A5rgABc74CAAVJ4AIAAtouAgAFd/wCAANalgIACmaqA//+vlgA=
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:05:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1e.0.170107
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A823FD1C4ED8478881F00F672F1FA364cablecomcastcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Forward
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprDKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWSUOxpoRvwakGEwaadFha7p0xjs1i54i6T xe5FPawWX/YvYLR4tnE+i8Wi3QfYLK5cbWG2OLLhLKsDh8eU3xtZPXbOusvusWTJTyaPRVOf MXp8ufyZzWPv02NsAWxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBktT1ezFPyZx1hxu6+DrYHx9izGLkZODgkB E4kT7ROZuhi5OIQEZjJJXOhexAzhHGKU2HT0CAuEc5JR4vyEL2AtbAI6EjOmXWMFSYgITGCU uL7hA1g/s0Azk8TU76fZQRxhgTZGiakXnjJClLUzSqxr+cEK0i8iUCbx7doEJhCbRUBV4nDn djCbV8BF4t+UXWwQC5eyS1yY/YsFJMEpYCsxp7cTrIhRQEzi+6k1YDazgLjErSfzmSD+EJBY suc8M4QtKvHy8T+wZaICehIbL0xjh4jrSJy9/gTqbwOJrUv3Ac3nALLlJT7OZQIxmQXSJZ6u cIM4R1Di5MwnLBDV4hKHj+xgncAoOQvJ4lkIHbOQdECENSXW79KHqFaUmNL9kB3C1pBonTMX ynaQuNvUx4isZgEjxypGubLExJTk3Iz80hIDI73kxKScVL3k/NzkxOISEL2JEZRmimR8djB+ muZxiFGAg1GJhzfr5oIIIdbEsuLKXGDEcTArifAufAgU4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIk zpt0aEaEkEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgdGe6Ui03f9b9y8I50hd+7w+wKLz8PMr7y7rPF/4 dmYK71OnfTrPpR5npnfNTDpqtsbgxreQC29UHSbd3mjtWJFvmpBn7Dm7aMph/l1NC3XXv35x k5tlucm5x3MPm+dqerW9mibwvUu57LRf0YoUBsXXldK39bYsSBJm2mkZu2Xer4N+HgoLCiSV WIozEg21mIuKEwFnM2eSLwMAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Pete Resnick <>, "" <>, IETF Discussion list <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:05:56 -0000

I’m trying to understand how a ban of this functionality would work.  Is it targeted at vendor products, precluding them from implementing the functionality?

If there is a technical problem that can be solved by using EH insertion within a domain where there are no harmful side effects, it should be able to be used.
In a software networking world where functionality is being deployed that is not from traditional network vendors; solutions that solve problems efficiently will get deployed.

John Leddy

From: ietf <> on behalf of "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>
Date: Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:56 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan <>om>, 神明達哉 <>
Cc: "" <>rg>, IETF Discussion list <>rg>, Pete Resnick <>om>, "" <>rg>, "" <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

Suresh, Jinmei and Fernando,

I fully agree with you Suresh, the goal of an IETF last call is to get NEW discussion and to re-do the lengthy discussions we had on 6MAN WG.


From: ipv6 <> on behalf of Suresh Krishnan <>
Date: Saturday 11 February 2017 at 07:11
To: 神明達哉 <>
Cc: "" <>rg>, IETF Discussion list <>rg>, Pete Resnick <>om>, Fernando Gont <>om>, "" <>rg>, "" <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

Hi Jinmei,

On Feb 10, 2017 1:23 PM, "神明達哉" <<>> wrote:
At Thu, 9 Feb 2017 18:30:11 -0300,
Fernando Gont <<>> wrote:

While I largely agree with Fernando on everything he said, I have to
admit most of the points are just repeated from the 6man discussion,
and won't get us anywhere new by discussing these again at this point.
I guess the only new input for the IETF last call is this:

> 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.
Although I don't want to point a finger at particular people or
organizations without an evidence, I guess not a small number of 6man
participants (not only those who explicitly spoke up here) suspected
that the decision process was biased with the influence of a large and
powerful organization and the process and resulting "consensus" was
not really a fair one.  And I'm not an exception to it - in fact, it
was so unbelievable to me that we can't clarify an ambiguity even when
we were also open for future extensions, that I couldn't think of
other reasons than a company agenda.

Of course, it's quite possible that it was just a coincidence that
many people with the same organization genuinely thought we should
leave it ambiguous while many others strongly thought we should
clarify it but few (if not no) people from that organization supported
the clarification.  But I don't think we can prove it either way.

But as Fernando said, I believe this point (and that several, and
arguably more, participants suspected it) should be included in making
the decision at the IESG and at the IETF last call.  And, whatever the
decision, it would be more productive to move on after that and use
our time for some other things.

I am guessing that the people who spoke up during the WG process to not put in an outright prohibition would make their case along with their arguments here as well. We are only a week into a four week long last call.