IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Errata Rejected] RFC6564 (4423)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 16 September 2015 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664DC1B2F3C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 LvkUWbKq0zUI for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [37.72.100.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298501B2F34 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [179.40.181.238] (helo=[192.168.123.127]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1Zc0Sf-0008Hn-He; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 02:20:34 +0200
Subject: Re: [Errata Rejected] RFC6564 (4423)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, jhw@apple.com, ek@google.com, Jim_Hoagland@symantec.com, manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com
References: <20150915130235.92BDB18046A@rfc-editor.org> <55F87CCB.7000204@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55F8A3C3.6030803@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:03:31 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55F87CCB.7000204@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/OnNyzMEh8h0bJMje-pVIj6Itdwg>
Cc: brian@innovationslab.net
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:21:53 -0000

Hi, Brian,

On 09/15/2015 05:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> (CCs trimmed)
> 
> I agree with the logic of the rejection.

I'd say I agree with the logic (i.e. "procedural", rather than "technical").



> I also believe that the problem raised is insoluble in IPv6;
> we would need to version the protocol to fix it.
> 
> That's why RFC 7045 created the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7045#section-4

I disagree here. The problem is solvable as per
draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header.

(Well, you can argue that we "circumvent the problem": we defined the
last EH ever, which creates a subspace for EH types).

Since it is not unlikely that during IPv6's lifetime we want to specify
new EHs, we better fix this sooner than later...

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email