IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D3E1296F2; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:43:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 nzl8xMTrkPE4; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22f.google.com (mail-pg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F27F1296C8; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id f188so95470562pgc.3; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:43:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QX2FKCpUUW+P0rwDOaxLdIrdkuT6gQCb87Qhl18qgFM=; b=i35yddMp+dcm14K1lDIyoH0E27H8qR9kNp1r6yA3wFb8iMPrN2romRZaI2YmKTekim TOkGxBx83LYGKSLCSILuyvd1D2FrruL/s2AHVek9y9DUQVmeNHpTpUIWg1relm+D+Rw4 DjKW1G53UWjOgVpy7VmDbOf13k350gGG9gyiMAB5uRi+2jwOdBuv9Jsl6hLPzwGmzq8L UZUxgu+0Gx/vPn0C4dCaOBGntbWT6L7gCBfPkibVICgRUIiWIHKFsGtPrAGCl9I5n+tU O2UIjFXS/4HD2ZCigC1RqHOUmVopTreDX36snnEuuujXjxDxuA3IZtNXEDHZ1APP0Ozd Fw/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QX2FKCpUUW+P0rwDOaxLdIrdkuT6gQCb87Qhl18qgFM=; b=TkpfGL02Y+LBDzVBatfAkW289ZamfaOTNn6Oy4YoU3GmKLfU/DIfIxhobK55+XkOz5 1rsLpDV73p9+vYCJQpQwpgrxSEuE1MlzoBtJzRk88RVlYZUGAXntgfHXBQOg05sWSCEQ +QsKLGzPw4oaOJ0Z8GlOIs16C/bIcTxzKFY+O3QGkvgbgb8NlGulmTOij7QNINJxzR/v ttZCp5icHgZNHMOhCB6vcHlaL6uc3hNuCYwc6YA/fLnl9Jhydt9NWK2Ac20zAYBksa6C hZwj9Vm7JmZUCNj9/lKWxOooQQCLqXqnuLfeCTG+tLXQyz9xlDo16ljNwjVHySQViJFl A+aw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfR4wLrNndNc6rYQz9TNXYBLtTW1oUxcqawJS8xMki/u0aLPGKfxb+RcVFGPqxzgw==
X-Received: by 10.99.1.23 with SMTP id 23mr12000757pgb.37.1479422617291; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (117.228.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.228.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k67sm10748177pfk.69.2016.11.17.14.43.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:43:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
References: <451D4151-B805-4A2E-8BAC-B6627C0B669C@employees.org> <CAJE_bqczRSZYWC3tDLXvxRMzqnV9nDjYjUddyRHtwfpGEXvm5w@mail.gmail.com> <189a5939-71c8-f686-b34c-cbf410d55374@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z_Zm82DZf9xusCUXPe=8pChZX7KR+9aEK38htfGge9Hg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <419dc1e4-ec89-36d9-1097-80055dff5bd2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:43:42 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2z_Zm82DZf9xusCUXPe=8pChZX7KR+9aEK38htfGge9Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SEmDSGnZ8Xh7Mufe7kYSWy8jabM>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 22:43:40 -0000

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.

It's all very well to ask "Which word in 'processed' don't you understand?"
but if different people interpret it differently, it's behaving as an
ambiguous word.

IMHO, we're beyond the point where discusion within the WG will achieve
anything. In IETF Last Call, anyone can state their views, and probably will.

Rgds
   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email