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

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:42 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Fernando Gont; 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
> 
> 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.

If it messes up tunnels, then it's not ready.

> This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the current
> IPv6 standards.

If that problem is also mitigated by a measure that does not mess
up tunnels, then wouldn't that be worth considering before
finalizing this publication.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

>     Brian