Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Agreed.

Joe


On 3/15/2017 11:59 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 16/03/2017 07:14, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>> On 3/15/2017 9:33 AM, Leddy, John wrote:
>>> Does this mean that only middle boxes, not covered by the architecture could insert an extension header for use within the domain?
>> Please see my recent post about Stefano's issue. IMO, any opaque
>> (distributed) system that acts like a host can follow the host (node)
>> requirements.
>>
>> The instant that system is not opaque or fails to act like a single
>> host, it becomes noncompliant.
> That's the point. That's why the 6man WG shot down proposals to play
> intra-domain tricks with the flow label a few years ago, and they
> didn't even break PMTUD or IPsec/AH.
>
> In another form, the answer to John is that there are no protocol police,
> so what consenting adults do inside their own networks simply isn't an
> issue that an Internet-wide spec can or should address. And for sure, the
> spec for IPvN for any value of N is an Internet-wide spec.
>
> If Stefano and colleagues describe how private domains can perform tricks
> that MUST NOT be exported to the Internet, that is fine. Whether that
> becomes a standards track document or an Independent Submission RFC is
> another question. But IMHO it is completely orthogonal to the rough
> consensus on 2460bis.
>
>     Brian