Re: Updating to RFC6434 to deal with 8200-style header insertion by IPIP

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

> On 6 Nov 2017, at 11:10, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Tim,
> 
>>>> Yes, that particular elephant stands politely and quietly in the corner
>>>> of the room. However, I'd just read the text you cite when I wrote my
>>>> message and I'll stick to what I said: we *specify* action for an
>>>> unrecognized extension header, but we ignore the elephant and *don't*
>>>> specify action for an unrecognized ULP. Consider it a drafting error,
>>>> or a design error. I agree with you about the practical effect: an
>>>> unexpected IPIP packet is likely to generate ICMP 1 today.
>>> 
>>> okay, so shouldn't 6463 fix this part at least?
>> 
>> The question is whether we add such “gaps” to 6434-bis, or spin up a new draft to update 8200, which might then be reflected in a future Node Reqs update.
>> I’m easy either way as an author of the doc, but would err towards minimising adding new material to 6434-bis, and trying where possible to just point to existing documents.
>> 
>> Some input from the chairs would be welcome.
> 
> If we are talking about the action for unrecognised next headers, I do not see a gap in existing specifications.
> If one want to engage in the sport of extreme hair splitting, I wouldn't mind if 6434bis were to add some a descriptive paragraph of "unrecognized next header including ULP are discarded as specified in 8200...".
> 
> If we are talking about the issue of IP in IP encapsulated packets sent to a unsuspecting host, that in my opinion requires a new document.

Thanks Ole.

Tim