Re: Errata #5933 for RFC8200

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fernando,

> On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:31 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 27/2/20 19:19, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> [....]
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear, I believe that your stated decision of processing this errata as "Hold for document update" is not only incorrect, but also doesn't represent the consensus this working group got during the rfc2460bis effort -- now RFC8200.
>>> 
>>> It is also unfortunate to have a second instance of this, because, at the time the same group was pushing other IPv6 insertion/removal ideas, I also objected 6man shipping rfc2460bis as such. And we only got to improve on that during IETF LC.
>>> 
>>> As such, I will formally Appeal your decision.
>> Please do go ahead. I stand by my assessment that this is a misuse of the Errata process and it is not a simple clarification as you claim.
> 
> For the third time, may I ask:
> 
> Can you please, as AD, answer these questions:

Personally, it is immaterial what I think as AD but I will answer your question below. The issue I have is you are claiming the WG had consensus on your proposed text while I clearly remember the consensus was extremely tenuous and I cannot make a determination *today* if the WG could have formed consensus around this text at that time. Please do read the shepherd writeup on RFC8200 to see how difficult the current text was to achieve.

> 
> * Does IPv6 support IPv6 header insertion/removal along the packet delivery path?

No. I would not implement that personally as I believe in the strictest reading possible (Postel principle: “Be conservative in what you do…”) but I can see how somebody can have a more liberal interpretation of it.

> 
> * If you assume so, then, How does it play with core IPv6 functionality like:
>    IPsec AH
>    PMTUD
>    error reporting

Thanks
Suresh