Re: 6MAN Minutes, Actions, and Document Status

[Ole Trøan <[e-mail]>]

Fernando,

[...]

> Some errata for the minutes:
> 
> The current text says:
> ---- cut here ----
> Ole asked about how this was different from an unknown L4 header?
> 
> <No answer>
> ---- cut here ----
> 
> There was an answer, so "<no answer>" should probably be replaced with
> something along the lines of "Fernando notes that having an unknown
> extension header means that you have enough information to apply a
> filtering policy, whereas if the full IPv6 header chain is missing, you
> don't have the necessary information to do it".

thank you, I have updated the minutes.

[...]

> I think that draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id is also ready for
> wg call for adoption as wg document -- I've rev'ed the document since
> IETF 83 in response to the feedback received during my presentation
> (i.e., just require the Frag ID to be unpredictable, without mandating
> any particular algorithm).

the chairs have an action item on taking this to the mailing list.
there was an issue that I believe Bob raised, if we were going to have publish RFCs on every field in TCP/IP protocols that should have unpredictable values, or if we should have a generic recommendation applying to protocol design in general.

> draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain is probably ready for wg call for
> adoption: I've rev the document in response to feedback during my
> presentation at IETF 83 -- but I will check with Dave Thaler and Eric if
> they think the updated text is fine, or whether it needs some further
> tweaking.

please do.

cheers,
Ole