Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 18/11/2016 10:45, Mark Smith wrote:
> ...
> > I'd really like to see it explained how those EH sections if RFC2460 are
> > ambiguous before I'd be willing to accept that claim.
>
> Mark, ambiguity is in the mind of the reader, not the writer. So when
> I see people who cite RFC2460 and who believe that it allows header
> insertion, and other people (including myself) who believe that it forbids
> header insertion, that's an operational proof of ambiguity.
>

I wanted to stay out of this one, but to be honest;

I read the current language in 2460bis-08 as "intermediate nodes SHOULD NOT
insert EH, its RECOMMENDED that you encapsulate."

Where as the original 2460 text, does not explicitly address the issue, but
I don't see how it can be interrupted as allowing an intermediate node to
insert an EH.

What I heard asked for is that 2460bis explicitly address the issue, that
is to make it abundantly obvious that "intermediate nodes MUST NOT insert
EH".

While I agree with this personally, I also agree there doesn't seem to be
consensus for that.

I can not agree with the proposed text, and at this point I would prefer
the original 2460 text, if there isn't a consensus for making it abundantly
obvious that "intermediate nodes MUST NOT insert EH".

Not sure that helps, but I tried.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================