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

"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com> Fri, 03 February 2017 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.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 769AA12951F; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:51:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 U2z6wFy3ekez; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09F60129503; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:51:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1624; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486111884; x=1487321484; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=vqwMp/m47S5fzFPKbk0N22RpfWpg3jUwQhwExA6Q/ns=; b=R3+8tho/j6/ZJ7KV/8ux0OMCE+NY2eq1hm5esIDg3frrrkwbhF14ynSJ OGQknk+rvE46m+AJF9yv1fTq0Tx7O1u6ZPxCF6F0E5/vORJJ2wAjSxNYT 6EoWC3DPR1uKjd82ess5HijZay8CspSGbjKqvLv/K/NColxkgv+AQOTC/ w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AeAQBTQ5RY/4MNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1NhgQkHjVmSCogNjSmCDR8LhXgCglg/GAECAQEBAQEBAWIohGk?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDAQEBODQLBQsCAQgYHgULIQYLJQIEDgWJWQMNCA6vFoc8DYNxAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWGS4IFgmqCUYFMMIM0gjEFiQeSIjgBjW+EFwqBcYh?= =?us-ascii?q?khiOKLIhcAR84gUsVOxEBhGiBSHUBhmOBMIEMAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,328,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="193695574"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Feb 2017 08:51:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (xch-rtp-010.cisco.com [64.101.220.150]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v138pMWM025492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:51:23 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 03:51:22 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com ([64.101.220.150]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 03:51:22 -0500
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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: AQHSffqxgH1E6/XKwki6PXlTKRp6/g==
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:51:22 +0000
Message-ID: <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.250.223]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7E4536BA5CDC0D4DA9E3A4610E5012AB@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/MhmVbX1pz0y4ZCR8acyecmsAn_M>
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 08:51:25 -0000

> 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 ? 

s.


> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------