Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Il 2020-02-27 02:14, Brian E Carpenter ha scritto:
> Eric,
> 
> On 27-Feb-20 12:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> Writing this without any hat,
>>
>> Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200.
> 
> The draft uses an undefined term ("pop") but it does *explicitly* state in a section called "Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH":
> 
>>> S14.4.      Remove the SRH from the IPv6 extension header chain
> 
> If the word "penultimate" means what it means in every dictionary, this is in-flight removal of a header, and that is explicitly against RFC 8200, section 4, first paragraph below the diagram.

Brian,

"penultimate segment" means what it means in every dictionary, but this 
is not in-fligth removal of a header.

When the packet has reached the "penultimate segment", it has reached a 
node "identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header" as 
stated in RFC 8200, section 4, first paragraph below the diagram

Please note that at the very end of section 3 the "Destination address" 
is defined as "address of the intended recipient of the packet (possibly 
not the ultimate recipient, if a Routing header is present)"

Stefano

> 
> It's possible that "penultimate" means something else, e.g. "ultimate". I don't know. I've been puzzling over this language for months and it doesn't change. Maybe someone can finally post an explanation, but until they do, I don't see how any WG Chair could assert rough consensus. An obviously organised +1+1+1+1 campaign is not consensus. I don't know about you, but when I see a message whose only content is "+1" I just delete it.
> 
>     Brian
> 
>> Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until the IETF last call or even until the IESG ballot. I see little point in postponing the closing of the WGLC and advancing the document (of course, the document shepherd will need to carefully write the section about the rough WG consensus).
>>
>> Finally, as far as I know, at the IETF we have no religion... else we would still be running NCP or IPv4 :-)
>>
>> -éric
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
>>
>> ...%<...%<....
>>      
>>      It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards
>>      -- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with
>>      - and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this
>>      category...
>>      
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
*******************************************************************
Stefano Salsano
Professore Associato
Dipartimento Ingegneria Elettronica
Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata
Viale Politecnico, 1 - 00133 Roma - ITALY

http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/

E-mail  : stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it
Cell.   : +39 320 4307310
Office  : (Tel.) +39 06 72597770 (Fax.) +39 06 72597435
*******************************************************************