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

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

On 29-Nov-19 00:03, Ole Troan wrote:
...> RFC7872 was (IMNSHO) based on the flawed belief that any end-host/service end-point should accept arbitrary extension headers.

I don't think so. The extension header mechanism was designed on a "consenting adults" model where all that matters is that both end points support a particular header type. (With two exceptions: the fragment header and the hop-by-hop options header, which are both significant en route. The routing header is *not* an exception to that model.) RFC7872 might be construed as testing whether that model is viable, but it doesn't imply any particular belief about end systems afaik.

> The document offers little with regards to the deployment of extension headers within a limited _network_ domain.

Indeed not; why should it, since it was measuring the open Internet?
> 
> I'm all in support for continuing monitoring and testing. 

Yes.

> Testing the "right thing"(tm) and understanding the results is a discipline on its own. If there is any learning that I can take from 7872, is that the RFC format isn't the right channel for measurement results.

There are specialised conferences or conference streams for measurement stuff, where there is also specialised peer review. Personally I don't care where the results are published, as long as we can all see them.

Regards
   Brian