Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

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

Fred,

On 12/10/2013 08:56, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM
>> To: Fernando Gont
>> Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt>
>> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
>>
>> On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> ...
>>> P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit on the length of the header chain,
>> I
>>> must say I symphatize with that (for instance, check the last
>> individual
>>> version of this I-D, and you'll find exactly that). But the wg didn't
>>> want that in -- and I did raise the issue a few times. So what we
>> have
>>> is what the 6man wg had consensus on.
>> I agree that this was the WG consensus after considerable discussion,
>> which included Fred, so I'm not sure why we're discussing it again
>> during IETF LC.
> 
> Technical matters should be discussed as they come to light; not
> dismissed because of some real or perceived deadline. That was what
> got us the 1280 MTU in the first place. Quoting from Steve Deering:
> 
>   " We would like to get this issue settled as
>     soon as possible, since this is the only thing holding up the publication
>     of the updated Proposed Standard IPv6 spec (the version we expect to advance
>     to Draft Standard), so let's see if we can come to a decision before the ID
>     deadline at the end of next week (hoping there isn't any conflict between
>     "thoughtful analysis" and "let's decide quickly" :-)."
> 
> So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of "thoughtful
> analysis" so much as the fact that **they were rushing to get a spec out
> the door**. So now, 16 years later, we get to put it back on the 6man
> charter milestone list.

We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that it's
relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain
is ready. This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the current
IPv6 standards.

    Brian