Re: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: NH=59 action item closure

Pablo,

On 17-Sep-19 07:44, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> I agree with your suggestion. What do you think of the following text?
> 
> <OLD>
>    9.  IANA Considerations
>  
>  
>       This document requests the following new IANA registries:
> </OLD>
>  
> <NEW>
>    9.  IANA Considerations
>  
> This document requests IANA to allocate a new IP Protocol Number value for “Opaque” with the following definition:
> The value TBD in the Next Header field of an IPv6 header or any extension header indicates that the payload is interpreted via a semantics previously established between the source and destination.

That seems clear enough. I would expect an addition to draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering, however. Something like:

3.4.x.  Opaque (Protocol Number=TBD)
...
3.4.x.3.  Specific Security Implications

   The security implications of the Opaque header are completely unknown.

3.4.x.4.  Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked

   The impact is completely unknown.

3.4.x.5.  Advice

   Intermediate systems should discard packets containing Opaque unless
   explicitly configured to allow it.

Regards
   Brian

>  
>       This document requests the following new IANA registries:
> </NEW>
> 
> Any feedback or other text proposal is welcome.
> 
> Many thanks,
> Pablo.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
> Date: Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 21:12
> To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
> Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: NH=59 action item closure
> 
>     On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:02 AM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
>     <pcamaril@cisco.com> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > Following the comments from IETF105, the working group preferred to allocate a new Next Header value.
>     >
>     > The authors would like to propose this diff. Any feedback is welcome.
>     >
>     > <OLD>
>     >
>     >    9.  IANA Considerations
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >       This document requests the following new IANA registries:
>     >
>     > </OLD>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > <NEW>
>     >
>     >    9.  IANA Considerations
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > This document requests IANA to allocate a new IP Protocol Number value for “SRv6 payload” with the following definition:
>     >
>     > The value TBD in the Next Header field of an IPv6 header or any extension header indicates that the payload content is identified via the segment identifier in the IPv6 Destination Address.
>     >
>     This seems like an extremely narrow use case to justify an IP Protocol
>     Number allocation. If this is the route taken, I would suggest to
>     define something more generic like "Interpreted" which could mean that
>     there is a next header, but it's interpretation requires information
>     elsewhere in the packet. That way the number could potentially be used
>     in other contexts than just SR.
>     
>     Tom
>     
>     >
>     >
>     >       This document requests the following new IANA registries:
>     >
>     > </NEW>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > We would propose to submit a revision with this text on the IANA section of NET-PGM beginning of next week.
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Pablo.
>     >
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     > ipv6@ietf.org
>     > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 