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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 03 February 2017 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 5BA041297EE; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:34:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 wVBGUZSdD3-D; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x231.google.com (mail-pg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::231]) (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 581C31297E9; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 204so8991976pge.0; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:34:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+bQZuTd8sdWUo2JNI/3FRh3JqLl8QnTntUa9ia6Xihc=; b=kXEXkf5Eog0Hyfay7PyBtf4dp+U029XIveqdUWun4ou7GKEU64w0k91C4l1/ruyabw SEQwOuTQRbO9/ceKxAS/OBJEzzXFu19qHIOdV4CNCyBlA9ihrPutPaoqEutwxIcsWqup PDGhbP7iVVfnwHgs6AHoE8yEsAPe6LamL6THDErUT5Lizii1jcu/2AG+xqacrvwexnqW SWWIZkVrgcfA1aMYvYpz4PEU+UhG99tAGVEcUajrnrOC/LldE8AHwGOBPsyAGa+sCp2Q jJnjM0yrO2kvGLp6KiRTLfx3Vehc1wXOTvlzc6tSCUTOz0SVmu2HJA47pSIe+N5ffVBq 67aQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+bQZuTd8sdWUo2JNI/3FRh3JqLl8QnTntUa9ia6Xihc=; b=Qzt+RtzP9Izs3hJPfDxIWrHQ7si6sgvp+gFkocvEoaA4VYXarXJD56HlgQZRJ0A+K1 PpZ4hvLyXzS3oSpu1bavV0Oyci54NsP0cMMFZ2FRyOB/HfrrGsmM+dzxRoUUQKaHrvD2 e+S+oLMIfL97wirF4zi2Zar6VMFcjJMTMZ7L6rrJRxBJTPg7DsDf3D//FxSHtYN4Vf4N 9yoDIL9Y1SIa+zkurO5w3YEkdJceu/DOnuTxtA8LfzniyAq40zF0f73ds1st5gY3s71E DWtYqZqc9q8HNPY8kLtybvLH04f7+YGXTCFAuSiVqNLUT8ISkZ3Tauu+U3qDE0cyCbz9 8d/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIFrbeopDGqEEWzOisQOt7w4PN9T2TkaSMZ9nIijjPpdACquBjw57ydyrxVbbrHRQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.55.66 with SMTP id e63mr20253307pfa.156.1486150492747; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.149.101.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j185sm69571740pgd.35.2017.02.03.11.34.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com> <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <811306aa-a8c5-e1cb-38ac-5bc9723ebe67@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 08:34:58 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KZtPA8yF1TrMvDDnxrp0gZAL63k>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
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, 03 Feb 2017 19:34:54 -0000

On 03/02/2017 21:51, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In Section 4 ("IPv6 Extension Headers") the draft says:
>>
>>>   With one exception, extension headers are not processed by any node
>>>   along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or
>>>   each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the
>>>   Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.
>>
>> (FYI, the exception is the hop-by-hop extension header.)
>>
>> I do not dispute that this sentence reached WG consensus. However, I want
>> to ask if it has IETF consensus. In my opinion, this sentence should read
>>
>>   With one exception, extension headers are not processed, inserted,
>>   deleted or modified by any node along a packet's delivery path, until
>>   the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case
>>   of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6
>>   header.
>>
>> I believe this was always the intended meaning of the word "processed"
>> from the earliest design phase of IPv6, but some people have read this
>> text as allowing insertion, deletion or modification of headers. IMHO
>> it needs to be clarified.
> 
> 
> are we re-spinning the debate on a WG-agreed text ? 

Yes. That's what an IETF Last Call is about.

   Brian