IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: SRH insertion vs SRH insertion + encapsulation

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 07 September 2019 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 14219120E0D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 05:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 eBa9L04oq4W6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 05:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (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 65138120E0C for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 05:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id s18so8502021qkj.3 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 Sep 2019 05:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JHw3aoL39xBybclV3OyskZH4YneJSX/Pd1Lsc8OinkE=; b=B4RwujtqnIJAxulffryyeR5ejB5AF+3JY2F6FDPsCyvOy/esxDfsrqK4xoovHzIjJZ cE/z7NHyELyXZmxhH1HT3xitMEQYYBQC87PgFK84HTgFmmr79V1fGEjWiVMXu9ucBf6Z VmAx1Id0gpqFzXaDB1ne0GqBiKkZ6byYnP1qVH3dfSOwCSgZ9QXcQZ9aeW8edhqTTmxh 2i8eo3xbGl/0YVr415Iajx/+3ttO4vHA5RTJh7N+gK/CnyULciKygS90Eo3rksys7i9V qg7p3xZE/WWzh26tmjXdV/MMNFV6q/MlFW4+3lxz1RMQJbM/u9+TlSB9PLg5jBQMkG8t dH8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JHw3aoL39xBybclV3OyskZH4YneJSX/Pd1Lsc8OinkE=; b=VJtCG7q4GC2u0oOWkhW8RUEFhrNhiJrIjk3Psynapgm2grhMvl91B1z5RTOHaAmljA zOtZ/F5I2UUMgGLjjHWSmf9I4mJuB2dCkGZPXAUFZUfa8oanFRWCo62lumMtGtbMl32i J92+/rjaBT5n2YUyK8CCaTZjPskKV5yJwMz8MfOazcnd+vbpW9L6nUspXCuGU7vX+M8h 97naT/fyNIGalv1x1SzGAdM/ssapHOlZ2nHkReFUi4yLJ+Hfz0cFIDNDglp+UkUEEIpT kycfC1zwNWWPrcZ1YYW3dZb82xLUMgcP2iI8LBrxNPuQn8C1LxUoG6JlCFCupIF0haAl rPJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXY0fS2Yt/UFrGzzbtNDr9MhrQEhk0Cac5P9d7cV4BzCLE0q0bH ng0W2G+jI0DrugyfEIneDx5w7E5CGOlg33B7iHCAUg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyy+DdRJgiatS0xYBAhfJRSDNpNUtapvox36b4Qh29UUD5vrFjs4DqRmkOBXgQBKOusms3M8/tQVoLqN/Q7j5o=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:8547:: with SMTP id h68mr13456341qkd.219.1567860991505; Sat, 07 Sep 2019 05:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOj+MMETQa=OfovZak35VfnY+T6qzU9BxAhmFMXz1b7kSppyQg@mail.gmail.com> <f1ac8b63-860a-4fee-141d-20bf9e1332cb@si6networks.com> <CAOj+MMG_KszYdMj27zDvAV+vtjRWPbHWoGErh_pRDvGOoVeqRQ@mail.gmail.com> <f36e9d66-9898-3153-ed08-29c56c82506a@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <f36e9d66-9898-3153-ed08-29c56c82506a@foobar.org>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:56:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFLVej8uj=KqkH4GqcvRLfR_wOh2s-jm6zXz-qtsvzYRA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: SRH insertion vs SRH insertion + encapsulation
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000074caf30591f61512"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Ks_TXJLr04KwtKvX0pgHCl3ReAQ>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 12:56:34 -0000

Completely contrary Nick ...

I am talking about content of the std track document body.

I am also stating that inter-operable implementations and deployments are
separate input to WG process. So are inputs from any WG participant.





On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 2:43 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

> Robert Raszuk wrote on 07/09/2019 13:34:
> >     So you are telling me that the document that proposes EH insertion
> >     doesn't contain the rationale for it, and we should go and look
> >     elsewhere?
> >
> >
> > Deployment experience is never part of standards track document. And it
> > should never be.
>
> Robert,
>
> you're perilously close to suggesting that operational input is
> irrelevant to protocol standards development.
>
> Nick
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email