Re: I-D Action: draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful-00.txt

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 14 October 2019 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 2FC0A12003F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 KOdC1NwFMdfZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x332.google.com (mail-ot1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) (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 97CD312003E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x332.google.com with SMTP id o44so15074228ota.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Tt84wfeGr+K0kPeNoGcvr9cC2jVrxdm4Mv5YvbBUbBU=; b=kux2Dqg7bQI7uaAixUP18zuTPnUl9YPJX3Vw7XQiVNV5YLRqPrh7fPHypfdzzufgEe 4Bta1uAgKtnfBv8jzYL2a/F4JG+n1+jcot0FLHIXG4OBT/ooAsLciInJ4+aVysSu85Ox EDCld1ScDk6qdQWUoxwwVJ7sqc72EblbELp7gbgFgyqaxQL38HhhL5r4YuQWyN9gEpLP OMWwHtbiiTc0NK5riP7dw/ghskqnetm3JA21HB93guvZP5u/VTpyU1/NiDLRd9728ca1 vffm9dYb7n/0tqsdVlppcoEE770ZWUmROeE144csfcyZcsqd25EO0P9hCRqGr3FrreW8 1zaw==
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=Tt84wfeGr+K0kPeNoGcvr9cC2jVrxdm4Mv5YvbBUbBU=; b=l02hboJSRpkr3+GPunx7l5VrmCw2H5fh1sVDrLQSzDAHbm94RKWgUx1Vwjn2fIv9xv 2YFcB3nLf803vvIcjKwRflwFF7Cf0Q/ddo5osoTcV/1tn6/YTO+nIv/RELP70An5xpmT ZEUH7Ss6lYGbhf2J6JoYUvVcrtFTs8FfDKYnzaxvlandmSXiMQZ9Jw3QHhmf57eh3HSz vBuTMiDcy8qxnTXt9uWOmcfk3ebB7uPcu+SqOxJwkB5e0Ij5eYPmIF7V+hDAfnxkOTSd yDyoKmmM6kLkp83N7lOQX5ejVwGzq/FImz9zewrjk2SCU2SXkiecbkyZACkhC2rMCTiO 9n9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVGVvR9dCz6SjuN+XTwo+EY9b7vmOeX6I4S2l9rpW2aWa4nPW4U ziE78u9nStO5a81rzw0uCBPm72n4JgrxgjWtGbs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyYqRYQZ+ZwaZcDuqZPUOp3rZmS9k35PSh3rN/1USRhE9FSHA5w2Y1KL9TflFshjH0U2yfOrQW9/io2SThonfk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1d69:: with SMTP id l9mr21005066oti.257.1571089707969; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157059901123.30422.11220423219059958820@ietfa.amsl.com> <362b80f7-fedc-7227-2931-0006e6b81812@gmail.com> <f2548b48-2d8d-01f0-f05c-0027a5cdeb91@foobar.org> <57b3a7bd-3dc3-d8be-0ac4-7218abdd94d8@gmail.com> <51fdb3bc-3155-c0c8-a34b-f68868885a24@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2yq_9-fSixu8f8ut3uVm00MFGcf6gFPjn725D+_tk2LXw@mail.gmail.com> <f634d33a-78c6-a678-f343-adc1b46859ef@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f634d33a-78c6-a678-f343-adc1b46859ef@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 08:48:00 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xjo_wa6_r6yGXb08y3GMsOvD0EHYn2GfQYxn4TYR14KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful-00.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Uq2Bal2QGkp66VeMgMWxD0sw1mY>
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: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 21:48:30 -0000

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 11:19, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One comment at the end:
>
> On 14-Oct-19 11:48, Mark Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 21:25, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Brian E Carpenter wrote on 13/10/2019 01:36:

<snip>

> > This could be solved by calling it "Mark's English" or "Mark's Version
> > Of English", which clearly states it is different to conventional
> > English dictionary English. There needs to be a "Mark's English"
> > dictionary.
> >
> > So as Nick said, if the IETF want to have non-interoperable versions
> > or variants of "IPv6", then they need different version numbers
> > somewhere or somehow - either minor e.g. 6.1, 6.2, or major e.g.
> > IPv10.
>
> Be careful what you wish for. It would be easy enough to define a
> (probably hop-by-hop) option for this:
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |   110xxxxx    |   00000001    | IPv6 version  |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>

While that should be a last resort compared to trying hard to fit
within existing RFC8200 mechanisms, I'd much rather that explicit
variant option than some implicitly different from RFC8200 behaviour
within a domain.

I like to imaging I'm troubleshooting by looking at a packet in a
packet capture tool like Wireshark. If I can look at the packet by
itself and tell how it should be to be processed without any
ambiguity, I'm much closer to solving the fault. If there is some
other processing context that isn't recorded in the packet itself,
that makes troubleshooting harder and take longer.

I think the more obvious it is how something works, the more obvious
it is where it may have broken.

Regards,
Mark.