Re: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: (with COMMENT)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 08/10/2013 03:43, Adrian Farrel wrote:
...
> Section 1.1
> 
> A couple of points about the following paragraph:
> 
>    In this document "standard" IPv6 extension headers are those
>    specified in detail by IETF standards actions.  "Experimental"
>    extension headers are those defined by any Experimental RFC, and the
>    experimental extension header values 253 and 254 defined by [RFC3692]
>    and [RFC4727].  "Defined" extension headers are the "standard"
>    extension headers plus the "experimental" ones.
> 
> My reading of the IANA registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/
> protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml) is that allocations can be made
> by IESG Approval or Standards Action. I think both of those are covered
> by what you call "standard".

I don't see that "IESG Approval" implies "standard", but I guess that's
a matter of interpretation.

> I am not convinced that an experiment that uses an experimental code 
> point needs to be documented in an Experimental RFC. 

Yes, the definition could perhaps be slightly wider. s/are those/include those/
for example.

> 
> Are 253 and 254 intended solely for experimental extension headers? 
> Couldn't the experiment be an experimental payload protocol?

I'll comment on Mike Heard's message.

> 
> ---
> 
> I find myself in I-wouldn't-have-done-it-this-way land, so this is, of
> course, just a Comment for you to chew on and accept or reject according
> to how it strikes you...
> 
> It seems to me unwise to create a new registry that duplicates
> information held in another registry. By adding a column to the
> "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers" registry you are making it 
> completely clear which are the IPv6 Extension Headers. Rather than risk 
> having this registry out of step with your new "IPv6 Extension Header
> Types registry", I would have had the existing, empty "IPv6 Next Header
> Types" registry redirect users to the "Assigned Internet Protocol
> Numbers" registry and mention the existence of the specific column that
> identifies extension headers.

Logically, yes, but I (personally) think that the convenience factor
of a separate list is valuable. We have running code proof in current
firewall implementations that people are *not* identifying the extension
headers today, and we want to make it easy for them.

   Brian
> 
> 
> .
>