Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 18:42 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 B3EAA1270A0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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=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 osQAmj4SGuN7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x243.google.com (mail-io0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::243]) (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 CC31712952F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x243.google.com with SMTP id n76so6707705ioe.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
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=GdOkAz50X59a/LIN4Z0AII2S1kG2KwzbrWEE9y9MdnQ=; b=e18NUyAhnoeCbEzXmRmcdmDp3X81eRAFmX/NNDLpthqd+vpSgIROm8E7CAEjyeec0Y QVxDpeoWObRoFMFRRMFLq3XAu3jtGhLupNW9+t0JBd6OPfKpaEBtSynbGgjBo3aRAAQR GNs3Xh+ApmrpH3t/mV2PStsA50Df1VQviSjPOlVV4x3CkzC+X5iR4PjzhKupvPek+yrV oEeOu+zMkujioCA2WvlvvRIHPvx+oRxAbNrxwj1s8WXsBEVm5YJzUnkvI6hslS6KOdAl fnn/viuJDv6abgBLOFzSISS1BYM3qtpYDrKuO+ItB4JxcdlGrVKI1Iq+V2qUQ0OnPWeX 20ZQ==
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=GdOkAz50X59a/LIN4Z0AII2S1kG2KwzbrWEE9y9MdnQ=; b=hZflwlZSteI3gTYSxpGCxkwLXcIhi71ybppGXGwWUoVHsgG1GQ2wmDlzXUZm+XMPxv biyeiSo0t62mBTIpEMlph0fMbiGK/EdTkKaEgx5lEKlN+di8kJPmpVXPltyxVCq45KG3 Tmk/RE/5khjRL5e8FTDoa+adByLB4xJ2M+bvyNS5GQNVp/fxXYqXmpcrhqWiJRRufjYE dSaUW/rGVF2xJAB2LT3fS1Fnz82zQVjY5HR3nj0DlUFTtYQTRXcfg2G04N0cTxX76DE9 iSScs/l2kd1zTQJggykOuRyHVS0uySjhIshk4LfkfxY290gT1Hi3NoJJwIwJarXymKsU on/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0/c6W/cyoTgOEaPY6qXyHQLhIfUaCJ0R/1Z4ULxLWUidDm2FDyg/v24SxAjDrysw==
X-Received: by 10.107.128.169 with SMTP id k41mr5182788ioi.59.1490985768901; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? (t2001067c0370012828ccdc4c97036781.v6.meeting.ietf.org. [2001:67c:370:128:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l129sm3912509ite.1.2017.03.31.11.42.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: "Ackermann, Michael" <MAckermann@bcbsm.com>, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <CAFU7BAS4zZ44ZRgmNSHBYvV9iWwRvn1X2Z-_-ncD-=E4mzhp9g@mail.gmail.com> <eb09748b-9d56-1306-e636-a482825f8e1d@gmail.com> <F2FACDFC-E7A8-47D8-8552-8E11D7E98345@jisc.ac.uk> <BN6PR14MB136174D6D442396781347270D7370@BN6PR14MB1361.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <a7bb4858-d5e1-0115-6b36-60dee91201fd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 07:42:58 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR14MB136174D6D442396781347270D7370@BN6PR14MB1361.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KyNkJmySopeb5SXbu5Y9SFoI1JM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 31 Mar 2017 18:42:56 -0000

On 01/04/2017 04:04, Ackermann, Michael wrote:
> QUESTION:
> Does the word PROCESSED, mean change, implying write capability?
> If yes, can that be stated?

I believe we went around that some time back and settled on 'processed'
as covering both calculating and modifying. I'm not enthusiastic
to wordsmith this yet again, personally, IMHO, YMMV. We've already
had to wordsmith the 'examined'.

    Brian
> 
> 
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Chown
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:39 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
> 
> On 31 Mar 2017, at 00:09, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> On 31/03/2017 11:13, Jen Linkova wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Suresh Krishnan
> <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com<mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> 
> Thanks to everyone who commented during the IETF Last Call of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08. The IETF last call discussion for this draft was mainly focused around the text in Section 4 that discusses the handling of extension headers. The biggest concern raised was that the current text is ambiguous on whether header insertion is allowed on intermediate nodes or not. There were some people arguing that an explicit prohibition is not necessary as the text is already clear, while others believed that explicitly listing the prohibitions will minimize any misunderstandings in the future. There was also a small number of people who wanted to explicitly allow header insertion and describe how to do it, but this was clearly out of scope for this draft (but may be in scope for future work in 6man). Overall, no one argued against the fact that the intent of the text in RFC2460 was to forbid insertion of extension headers on any other node but the source of the packet.  The only argument m
> a
> 
> de against adding clarifying text was that the text was already clear. Given this, I believe there is consensus to add explicit text about header insertion into the draft before it progresses further. I have discussed this with the editor and the document shepherd and would like to propose the following text change.
> 
> 
> OLD (from -08):
> 
> The insertion of Extension Headers by any node other than the source
> of the packet causes serious problems.  Two examples include breaking
> the integrity checks provided by the Authentication Header Integrity
> [RFC4302], and breaking Path MTU Discovery which can result in ICMP
> error messages being sent to the source of the packet that did not
> insert the header, rather than the node that inserted the header.
> 
> One approach to avoid these problems is to encapsulate the packet
> using another IPv6 header and including the additional extension
> header after the first IPv6 header, for example, as defined in
> [RFC2473]
> 
> 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...
> 
> NEW:
> 
> With one exception, extension headers are not examined, processed,
> inserted, or deleted 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 have some concerns with how that sentence AND the following note
> comes together:
> 
> "  With one exception, extension headers are not examined, processed,
>   inserted, or deleted 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.  Note: If an intermediate forwarding node examines
>   an extension header for any reason, it must do so in accordance with
>   the provisions of [RFC7045].  "
> 
> I'm afraid that the lack of the normative language strikes back..
> 
> Exactly the opposite, IMHO. I think it's much better like this than it
> would be under RFC2119 (although in fact that doesn't change the
> English meaning of 'must'). The "Note:" describes a situation where
> middleboxes are actually breaking the rule. We had that fight before
> RFC7045.
> 
> Indeed. The RFC7045 exception applies specifically to *examining* headers, with the common use case being firewalling.
> 
> Changing the RFC7045 exception text to clarify this in 2460bis was proposed, but it wasn’t taken forward.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
>     Brian
> 
> 
> 
> If 'are not examined" is to be interpreted as RFC2119 'MUST NOT',
> then the following note conflicts with that statement. 'A node MUST
> NOT examine EHs
> but if it does it must do it as per RFC7045' - it is extremely controversial.
> 
> If ''are not examined" is to be read as RFC2119 'SHOULD NOT' then I
> have a very good news for
> those who would still like to insert/delete EHs: they can do it  as
> long as  they have
> "valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular
> behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
>   implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
>   before implementing any behavior described with this label.".
> But from today's presentation I've got an impression that the
> intention of this text was actually to prohibit EH insertion
> (the sildes say 'no one argued against the fact that the intent of the
> text in RFC2460
> was to forbid insertion of extension headers on any other node but the source
> of the packet.).
> 
> So to summarize: the proposed text either explicitly prohibits the
> examination (and then it contradicts the next sentence and we need to
> do smth with the note and RFC7045) OR it allows EH insertion - it
> depends how the text is interpreted.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies.
>  
>  Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.
>