Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8200 (5933)

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

> On 3 Mar 2020, at 22:43, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I didn't know what we meant to say, because I never thought for one
> moment how the text applied to routing headers, where the destination
> address essentially becomes a variable instead of a constant, and where
> the Segments Left field is mutable by construction. So it isn't a "flea";
> IMHO it's a major omission. (I feel a bit guilty, because we first missed
> it in RFC7045.)

You should not feel guilty.
Isn’t the IETF mantra to write specifications to ensure interoperability. The goal isn’t to write enough legalese to prohibit future uses (or abuses) of the specifications. De jure standards (would require a significant change to organizational structure) and compliance certification?

In addition rfc8200, has only a place holder for source routing. It was expected that details would have to be specified in the documents defining the new source routing mechanisms. 

I don’t think you should have been expected to have the foresight and imagination to believe it feasible that someone would invent a source routing header that with network programming changes the basic premise of destination based forwarding in IP. 

Cheers 
Ole