Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (5933)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 11/12/19 21:07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 11-Dec-19 16:27, RFC Errata System wrote:
> ....
> 
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>    Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header, or a 
>>    Destination Options header preceding a Routing header) are not processed,
>>    inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the
>>    packet reaches the final destination node (or each of the set of final
>>    destination nodes, in the case of multicast). 
>>
>>    For packets that do not include a Routing Header, the final destination
>>    node is identified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. 
>>    For packets that include a Routing Header, the final destination node is 
>>    identified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header only when
>>    the Segments Left field of the Routing Header is 0. 
> 
> I'm seeing a problem here. The Segments Left field of the routing header
> must be decremented at the end of each segment. That's processing the
> RH in my book, and it will occur when Segments Left >0.

It seems the problem is not related with this text, but rather with the
fact that it omits RH-specific text as for the HbHO and DO headers.

i.e., HbhO, DO that precedes a routing header, and the routing header
are exceptions to the rule.

(The text regarding SL==0 is because it's essentially impossible to tell
where in the type-specific data of a RH the final destination will be).

So.. how about if the text above is expanded to "Extension headers
(except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header, the ROuting Header, or a
Destination Options header preceding a Routing header)"

...and then RH-specific text (similar as for HbH or DO that precedes a
RH) is added?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492