Re: I-D Action: draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-02.txt

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

On 06/12/2017 05:16, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:58 AM, Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote:
>> Brian, thanks for starting the thread.  There has been a lot of conversation on this topic now for quite some time, and most recently on this thread, with some good explanations… I see the following:
>>  
>> 1 – RFC8200 has some non-normative text stating non-source nodes do not insert extension headers. Neither RFC2460 nor RFC8200 disallow an intermediate node from inserting SRH.
>>     - RFC2460 section 4 did not exclude insertion of SRH’s
>>     - Errata ID: 4657 suggested some text from Fernando disallowing insertion, however the disposition of that Errata was “Held for Document Update”
>>     - RFC8200 closed Errata 4657 and there is no normative statement disallowing extension header insertion, rather the suggestion.
> 
> Have you followed the publication process of RFC8200? :-)
> 
> EH insertion is forbiden by RFC8200 as much as it could possibly be.

To be extra clear: RFC8200 does not use the capitalization of normative
keywords as defined in RFC2119. It is written in plain English. The text
"Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not
 processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery
 path, until the packet reaches the node..."
is just as normative as every other part of this Internet Standard.

That's why any standards-track version of draft-voyer- would need to
formally update RFC8200.

   Brian