Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 03 February 2017 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 DC45A1294EB; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:48:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 HcRzsbB_WUv3; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x242.google.com (mail-qt0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::242]) (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 E6DB71294D5; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x242.google.com with SMTP id s58so6118915qtc.2; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:48:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=P/+uy83y4EydEgJ3ULTvUx52RmWHgyOrq92KWXsuhVY=; b=uxpvWGI8KbH/q1AZSpULCtgfPbSVPrCQJdn5YiEy6ws0a0djjpeVm6ds0HaoCU4ve8 MLiTjWQnsW/moc+cKGrieM2dVsHapcPrzdmcZk/NhcgncP6All0rq3NLRl0wh7kAl6oY jWx5+QKwLq1at4CANUbwFtDFKRVzkpF4qhGUSZW2xyUqQWuU+XqI8d0Xl4ll0LxTOOb6 DUQkLHLwMMelRV7QshCirlMbNCLiXG4exBiXCDlgLX6VH+cxXOQKTzj092ZTmsyAT5FW 69hGd2oD0UebEVxNPAmq9+1rFcq0YtlzEebhxV+jwPmVEDqyuRVSzzVcwo7k43rLy6la VgnA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=P/+uy83y4EydEgJ3ULTvUx52RmWHgyOrq92KWXsuhVY=; b=CDAhcbtAePnLYP1QymAGdct5SWr6KcyQQIf7veo09X7K8Sa2aWQGsBBvXgp6uqt4S7 hYNfL4zAOdP1JlQTmlp5SuQTkTLg535tJMK8IUbRqIR4M0vFZ3vGXnM4UGNUibjSovIV 1f09GK/QEc7HaSu54xV29UiZK2Z28LOne3ZP1Q/UdQCGfQ66+iirxmVPvZ6/XAbi7Vgb Opaa5I4sdJoim8F3BdJnzB50sTLUqF5xZSRS/eqtngFkbqQLPt2DYnjLTK8uLWNZOEN6 I3RwJy1kZuo4VIx6rorCj7GOpgabonrXSIR6E0kM4PU2wULYkojXo3ToPMtsvtlBzptN K4ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKiR3+6yrGMPqYyNxijQl+DDsCa+f/+Rb2niSYgjiBMzT2JVuwiiuyrXx1hm5c2jVtdF+BQ7DXkNW5zFg==
X-Received: by 10.55.189.130 with SMTP id n124mr15209952qkf.235.1486147727904; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:48:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.60.29 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:48:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:48:47 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2YOFO7RBCcAx_oVmpAf4vy4Rnzg
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqem9219YiV_iY3JXZmTjAH4+eGfoVTRhXbD0Pw_m-ypVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SNRAaAOLvmurm4Il4MhyBRZqSCU>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org, IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 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: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:48:51 -0000

At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:37:45 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> >    With one exception, extension headers are not processed by any node
> >    along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or
> >    each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the
> >    Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.
>
> (FYI, the exception is the hop-by-hop extension header.)
>
> I do not dispute that this sentence reached WG consensus. However, I want
> to ask if it has IETF consensus. In my opinion, this sentence should read
>
>    With one exception, extension headers are not processed, inserted,
>    deleted or modified by any node along a packet's delivery path, until
>    the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case
>    of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6
>    header.
>
> I believe this was always the intended meaning of the word "processed"
> from the earliest design phase of IPv6, but some people have read this
> text as allowing insertion, deletion or modification of headers. IMHO
> it needs to be clarified.

I'd also like to see if it has IETF consensus.  I've never understood
why we can't correct text when it has been misunderstood and while
(almost?) everyone agrees it's really misunderstanding according to
the intent of the author of the text.
I stated it in a bit more detail at the time of WGLC:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg25489.html

Brian hinted that the wg probably just got stuck about this discussion
and realistically we can only discuss it in the IETF last call:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg25490.html

My understanding is that that's why we're now having this thread and I
fully support and appreciate it.  I guess this also answers the
question of whether we're re-spinning it here.  In fact, in my
understanding that's exactly the point of having both WG and IETF last
calls.

As for the actual text, I support the suggested text by Brian.  I
would probably propose something slightly different myself, but I'm
fine as long as the clarity issue is resolved/improved.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya