[IPv6]Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-09: (with DISCUSS)

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

IESG folks,

Please take look at the previous version<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-08#name-icmpv6-considerations> of this document. Would that text have satisfied Zahed's DISCUSS?

I removed that text last night to satisfy Eric Vynke's DISCUSS. He argued that it repeated RFC 4443 content with which we should all be familiar.

I am happy to do whatever it takes to satisfy you guys. After all, whatever text we converge upon will not affect CRH or ICMPv6 behavior. CRH will continue to send ICMPv6 messages and ICMPv6 implementations will continue to rate limit them, regardless of what I say in this document.

In this case, where the IESG has issued Dualling DISCUSSes, I think that it is the IESG's responsibility to craft text that satisfies both AD's and submit that text to the author in a timely manner.

                                                                                                                    Ron


[https://static.ietf.org/dt/12.13.0/ietf/images/ietf-logo-card.png]<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-08#name-icmpv6-considerations>
The IPv6 Compact Routing Header (CRH)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-08#name-icmpv6-considerations>
This document describes an experiment in which two new IPv6 Routing headers are implemented and deployed. Collectively, they are called the Compact Routing Headers (CRH). Individually, they are called CRH-16 and CRH-32. One purpose of this experiment is to demonstrate that the CRH can be implemented and deployed in a production network. Another purpose is to demonstrate that the security considerations, described in this document, can be addressed with access control lists. Finally, this document encourages replication of the experiment.
datatracker.ietf.org



Juniper Business Use Only

________________________________
From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 7:42 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-09: (with DISCUSS)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9YImRce8_SRQ2hd6DKLxEa7uIr3qjz2h7gA8v8zPrQZtZdWt0VIEcP41q4iFkeYqpLIBOAMF-Jxu5M$
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-comp-rtg-hdr/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9YImRce8_SRQ2hd6DKLxEa7uIr3qjz2h7gA8v8zPrQZtZdWt0VIEcP41q4iFkeYqpLIBOAMSaM4NFM$



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for working on this specification.  Special Thanks to Gorry Fairhurst
for the TSVART review.

I have one question that I would like to discuss further to understand better -

 - In the processing rules, we are seding ICMPv6 Messages so how often are we
 sending them? if this is not rate limited, what are the risks we are not
 considering here?