Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 23/11/19 20:59, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[....]
> 
>> - I object to not updating RFC8200 in any RFC that contradicts its content. If EH insertion should be accepted by this WG despite the objections then implementers reading RFC8200 need to know that a conscious exception has been made.
> 
> So, it sounds as if you are against publishing true facts. 
I believe that for what's one way or another a protocol spec, there has
to be a limit with respect to what the IETF publishes. Otherwise,
particularly when it comes to outsiders, it will become much harder to
"consume" RFCs.

Particularly when it comes to vendors (and even more when it comes to
big ones), which tend to be well-represented, one would expect that they
play more by the rules, bring ideas, and benefit from wg discussions, as
opposed to implement something, push its deployment, and then bring the
idea to the IETF to rubber-stamp it.


OTOH, when it comes to publishing facts, quite often I've seen folks
arguing that publishing documents would be a way to encourage things.
e.g., I was rather trashed when I presented the measurements that
eventually made into RFC7872, and we only got to publish them on the
condition that any rationale was removed from the original document.
The rationale eventually moved into a separate document
draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops, which some folks argued that
should not be published since it might be interpreted as encouraging the
existing behavior -- when it simple documented while folks do what they
do. When it comes to this particular topic (to which I have devoted a
fair share of time), there's a big and accepted mistmatch between what
the operational community considers facts, and what the IETF is willing
to publish -- and in this particular case it's really operational
experience, rather than anybody circumventing the std process.

Just my two cents.

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492