Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 10 February 2017 00:29 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 04A661295AD; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:29:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 7_zfAVMtim8L; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:29:47 -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 D91A6129543; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.83] (142-135-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.135.142]) (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 6764E81A4C; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 01:29:41 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: otroan@employees.org
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com> <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org> <8D401C5B-C3C3-4378-9DFA-BF4ACC8E9DAF@qti.qualcomm.com> <D2D907D5-84B4-43BB-9103-F87DA9F122EB@employees.org> <33DC7B74-D240-4FF2-A8FF-C9C5A66809EE@qti.qualcomm.com> <1179DE45-3971-44A1-9630-28F76D2D652D@employees.org> <2ea64b3c-d69d-6b6c-cb04-fe63727a8bee@si6networks.com> <23C46409-337C-468D-BCDC-34027BB56CAD@employees.org> <30715b9e-e9b7-320e-f9e2-fc3f64615d5c@si6networks.com> <75774ea9-86e8-7353-b4fc-58cad402ffe0@gmail.com> <753c70f9-5159-8a8b-a364-90e73ec1fc8e@si6networks.com> <C14D7BF0-6A06-4276-A7F8-9CE9DFE4F793@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <8f5cb517-6a33-792d-a0c4-c3a2bc94264c@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:29:25 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C14D7BF0-6A06-4276-A7F8-9CE9DFE4F793@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/dvtXSm6goKPjZKt7v57XzpMviQQ>
Cc: 6man@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:29:48 -0000

On 02/09/2017 08:36 PM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>>> I don't think it has. In fact, that's the whole point: some
>>> people have *not* deduced that rule from the RFC2460/RFC1883
>>> wording.
>> 
>> "It has always been clear.... till these proposals on EH insertion
>> arised".
>> 
>> Since some people didn't "deduce" it from the current text, that's
>> a clear indication that a clarification is warranted.
> 
> You can now optimize this discussion without having to bother the
> whole IETF list. Just look up the counter arguments in the previously
> posted summary.

We're moving RFC2460 to full Standard. You have to make arguments to
*change* the spec, not to clarify what's already in there -- for
instance, ne would expect that part of the benefit of the process is to
clarify the spec where necessary.

If you can make enough of a case to enable EH insertion, then propose
that as what it actually is: a *modification* to the spec.

If we move RFC2460 to full Std without even being able to tell people
whether this is an end-to-end protocol or not, I think that would be a
*very* bad outcome.

Me, I'm done with this discussion. A number of us (Enno Rey, Mark Smith,
and others) have commented on our view on the topic (for IETF folks that
didn't participate in the 6man discussions).

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