Re: Please review: 6MAN WG Adoption call: draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling-03

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, All,

+1 to adoption and everything Brian noted, modulo one issue noted below:

On 10/18/2015 04:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, I think the WG should adopt this topic. In particular, I support
> the key recommendation:
> 
>> Packets containing the Hop-by-Hop Extension Header SHOULD be
>> processed at substantially the same rate as packets that do not.
> 
> I do have a few comments on the current text:
> 
>> At this writing, there are several defined Hop-by-Hop options:
> 
> This list should probably mention the experimental options defined
> in RFC 4727.
> 
>> 2.3.  Adding headers or options in transit
> 
> I have extreme doubts about this. I believe that RFC 2460 intended to
> forbid this but was loosely worded ("extension headers are not processed
> by any node along a packet's delivery path"). When the time comes, I will
> argue  that 2460bis should correct this. In any case, if this section is
> retained, it needs to discuss MTU issues. I don't see why that belongs
> in the Security Considerations.
> 
>> 3.  Interoperation with RFC 2460
> 
> Should probably be adjusted to refer to 2460bis.

I'd say both 2460 and 2460bis.

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492