Re: I-D Action: draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header-01.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've finally understood what's been bothering me about this draft.
Actually, two things:

1. If a node (regardless of whether it's the destination host,
or an intermediate node such as a firewall) has a policy
of discarding packets with an unknown extension header
or an unknown transport protocol, it *doesn't matter* that
it can't distinguish them. The packet is discarded anyway.

Comment on that: In either case, this discard by a host is
consistent with RFC2460 (even as updated by RFC7045). In either
case, it's what we would expect a firewall to do if it has the
usual sort of paranoid policy, and that again is consistent
with RFC7045.

2. Given that argument, I think this draft should consider a
4th possible solution: Do Nothing. I think it's a valid option.

Nits: I don't see why this draft is tagged as Standards Track
and Updates 2460. It's an informational discussion.

Please change the title of the draft. At the moment it has
the same title as draft-gont-6man-rfc6564bis.

Regards
   Brian