IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 26 November 2019 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989CB120AFE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:36:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69_HB8R0BDUn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:36:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC244120AFA for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.69] (unknown [186.137.78.253]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03EB986A7B; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 23:36:06 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>
References: <157422734071.5406.14331301768750185617.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <851F7007-3DD5-42F3-8884-8842DA07EE53@cisco.com> <1cfd682f-d6bc-a697-38a7-933aa0485b8a@si6networks.com> <D4436EF5-2B97-44A4-915D-EF7611590B51@steffann.nl>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <ccf6cbe6-c837-64e3-b25e-d3fa8e3b7bcb@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:35:46 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D4436EF5-2B97-44A4-915D-EF7611590B51@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ciiBeU9Y5dsvziH1ghw23lcx1R0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:36:16 -0000

On 22/11/19 15:58, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> What's the rationale for this document being "Informational"?
>>
>> Documenting how folks are breaking the spec?
> 
> For that I think an Independent Submission is the only appropriate one. Anything in any IETF stream should either stick to existing specs or explicitly update them.

I'd be quite curious with 6man publishing a doc describing how folks are
violating a core spec (published by 6man with IETF-wide consensus) that
received such a strong push-back.

I'd assume such a document should either gain wg consensus, or it should
be published as "please don't do this".

In fact, I'm kind of surprised that we're even having this discussion.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email