Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 06 December 2019 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 AAD1D1200F6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:22:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 w3YwMVDeDhU2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (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 A3628120073 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id f8so7384517edv.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:22:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YheeN0/NtnP0WlQYkzEWNcPWVZgDMTFYqRAnxri23/w=; b=nO3bT+/ZMR0bjVD/e/PQzEy42S8jqSpy5hNZdDzon59N8soe8OFMFOZS7S9Y5v+dlB 4K/0lv8p0FjawoEmEWoF9LStFIeo82AdtBH4cdeyL/c7sK3o7ZapVu+xy+wSGZQbfz6T AIzsLwxfWzMsps0rkpELhIs4UcrBnRT501k2iJrV3n9Z01kuwTO80feMOjwMzLYnUBRk g/cYcKopaaZdaWbCcUJz95je9leUVXP+SmY1NG8JjhkCYqWw25mOTUPXd3yb3fho9CrM m5QhqJb0D7QeQ2Urv7MihgdAEsDh0EHOuiToTQqLz3e1/oshNjUrkBoaBx38SITMy5gj pvKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YheeN0/NtnP0WlQYkzEWNcPWVZgDMTFYqRAnxri23/w=; b=k+1v4mJwD34HOCbsEA7cievFLvrHr32nB9/Xtwgtz54r91shwQzSCO1JJ3VbG1wmaG bqWxiUUAOFgEe1CRIcLiuIrIy248cS5wMtW0gTSlXSy909fhfOVWHzIXH/qB+3hE0rh2 saTjia2SQ9tnKTmmukNzKU0ODMfHivX/FD0mPVXfFrYmUl+OtmTgpl5xNttvTcIms53r uYdeEjx1vSufEOPE4PPXbMLhdIx/9n4O+XOLv9T3r2V6BOCKugqZ69AjdWoXI1z+6Kaq /NHr0UqTlgBpt9eSGCpDOZHHC8FS600meIgTHfFZwBaxBRscHkF62XBJElhsG4L7+XOO mL5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVvT8XwmQ2o/oUzfbnXFMZLvFZ4onCWzNeK1f+eE1A7oh5aNxz7 YBWCnWR1mbQbGuv4AaGJivitigwa3dWyUj6n+LuvJw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy0W8uqx80P3l9L0qm09W8N1kEuWp1oE6GmpYza+oRIrO6oOO59S/lmyz8++2C349aRWhQ6W0xWmxULoXLDtcQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a444:: with SMTP id cb4mr18562959ejb.42.1575674553115; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:22:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BN7PR05MB56998A05469327E759B5B671AE5D0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3AD3BD11-8C34-41FE-B88F-49A9F2561D78@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB569946D6AA5C6B78AFC05F6BAE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8DEDE597-B7B0-48F5-959E-69757315C2AC@employees.org> <BN7PR05MB56996FFC117F512EEA04AFC8AE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <4FAB68A3-C533-471D-94D0-3F6EB1F32FC1@employees.org> <1e36a492-5931-02de-cf85-63339522b13a@si6networks.com> <F6DD2C7C-DBBF-4B48-B890-3C86005FB9CF@employees.org> <bb3be82d-8ea7-6c29-ad0a-61b491ee997d@si6networks.com> <8A9BC46E-A018-41C0-BE47-4BABC30EFE79@employees.org> <20191205222740.GA9637@ernw.de> <C7BCB0CF-1CA3-4CA8-9E71-13A013955938@employees.org> <430da027-07a7-42f9-60d0-bbb3f3306222@joelhalpern.com> <7c8494a7-9d3c-bd0e-953e-b6dfbb5c5512@gmail.com> <1e721684-0962-4e75-06dc-242cbae74378@si6networks.com> <17b7768e-0a48-61a2-f05a-f6c49ee5f0ff@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <17b7768e-0a48-61a2-f05a-f6c49ee5f0ff@gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:22:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CALx6S37dd0cF05TyJYsABU9h=CB_e51CuE=xvaiDjRisav62Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SvLBLKpsTGkiBvMa6VgwYCAH8Cw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Dec 2019 23:22:37 -0000

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:57 PM Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 07-Dec-19 10:22, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > On 6/12/19 17:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> Joel,
> >>
> >> On 07-Dec-19 04:09, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> >>> Ole, there is no IETF accepted definition of "limited domain".
> >>> There is no IETF rough consensus that it is sensible for us to
> >>> standardize things for "limtied domains".
> >>
> >> That's correct, and that's exactly why the "limited domains" draft
> >> was submitted to the Independent Stream. It is a fact, documented in
> >> that draft, that quite a lot of chartered IETF work is directed at
> >> limited domains.
> >
> > I'm not necessarily arguing against your point. But I'd note that, when
> > it comes to IETF consensus, there's no such a thing as "limited
> > domains", and IPv6 is IPv6 -- we don't have any concept of "IPv6 for the
> > capital 'I' Internet" and "Modifications for closed domains".
> >
> > IIRC, I did support your document on int-area (?). So it is not that I'm
> > against the concept of limited domains. Just noting that, as
> > IETF-conseusns, there's no such a thing.
> >
> > That said (and without re-looking at your document right now), there's a
> > difference between a protocol being effectively employed in a limited
> > domain (mDNS, if you wish), vs something like this, in which you are
> > *hoping* that your changes don't leak out of your domain... but in fact
> > you are not really operating in a limited domain if the src/dst
> > addresses of packets span past your "limited domain".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> While there are standards that are designed for specific deployments,
> >>> they do not to date use that as an excuse to violate existing RFCs.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that statement is literally 100% correct, because some instances
> >> may well have passed unnoticed or without controversy. SRH insertion
> >> has not tried to pass unnoticed, and has become controversial.
> >
> > My own impression is that it did try to pass unnoticed.
>
> draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-00, a document that I strongly
> criticised, came out March 28, 2017 and its first sentence read "The network
> operator and vendor community has clearly indicated that IPv6 header insertion
> is useful and required." I *really* think that your impression is wrong. This
> has been public for almost 3 years now.
>
> > Even the latest
> > rev of the EH insertion draft doesn't even have a reference to RFC8200.
>
> Well, the current document editor already said that will be fixed.
>
> > And if you've read the initial exchange that triggered all other
> > comments, an author (?) was kind of trying to educate Ron about the
> > document not doing eh insertion/removal.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Hence, as far as I can tell, the assertion that SRv6 is for limited
> >>> domains does not justify or excuse violating RFC 8200.  And "I want to
> >>> save some bytes", while very nice, is not a sufficient reason to violate
> >>> an approved RFC, must less a Full Standard.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, running code in a variety of real and deployed
> >> products is something that we have a long tradition of documenting forEven the latest rev of the
> >> informational purposes. RFC1094 or RFC3954 for example.
> >
> > Major difference: None of the two protocols you've reference do an
> > outright violation of an IETF standard --- even less an Internet Standard.
>
> That wasn't my point. (If you want an example that does violate an IS, try RFC1631.)
>
> My point is that we have often document reality.
>
Brian,

This would seem to establish the blueprint as to how a large vendor
can do whatever they want: simply write your protocols however you
wish, put it into products and get some deployment, and then take it
to IETF to publish as being a "de facto" standard that can't be undone
since it's already a reality. What a great way to circumvent the
standards process!

Tom

> Regards,
>     Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------