Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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

On 22/04/2017 08:09, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> ​Hi Ole,​
> 
> 
>> That does in no way stop anyone from proposing _new_ work. Of any sort.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ole
>>
> 
> ​Very true ! Anyone can propose anything in IETF.
> 
> But with the text additions which I have seen here recently the bar to move
> from individual's draft proposal to WG doc then via all LCs to Standards
> Track RFC just went up significantly higher especially for SRH and EH
> elements. ​
> 
> And that's my point.

But *our* point, for some definition of 'our', is that by making the
Internet-wide situation clear, we are in fact clearing the way for careful
definition of local-use mechanisms. At the moment, as we've clearly seen
from discussion of the SRH, we simply can't have that discussion because
of the unfortunate ambiguity of RFC1883 and RFC2460. Truly, the quicker
we get that settled and approved by the IESG, the quicker we can look
seriously at draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion.

You might ask yourself why no IPv4 options have been defined since 2007
(Quick Start) and before that, 1997 (Router Alert). The same reason: they
don't survive a trip across the Internet.

    Brian