IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 31 March 2017 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.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 A6A9B12952D; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 sS-g-53bFbVE; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 211921296F3; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id b140so43552657iof.1; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=9qjhjtCeTYXuHOp5Wo3BLOJDBEPWwB3KoS9zdKWxDO0=; b=KKwUfPosKyxTyEuetMwCnTaZsAXgrYMKsyy8YLwtuvu1r4mvpo6t68cLjBlAjDFWDr 9CfJRz3s+oRN6y8i4TjEBn7f43AwD05cxWk693ZymX+ZWthaE+9vCn3/RUNSoLTOxwxQ iBpcNb/4WXBmYuoNrP+9myY+U8ELAiqjsicOEzgDc7lDYJI07TuIQGhiiQobKLxaf8EE iuKBpSFu6AHvZ5KZwuyX73qMp/olFCgf3fJ7LhBeQHkhspyr9Vv85Bxbx+4sY7q4i0Dy HK5y8IrpyksfveyU7R73vtm4bWXPruuei1v4vBSgJSr3VPGhq2GT3pa0sPjgLWOgJrs0 GEZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9qjhjtCeTYXuHOp5Wo3BLOJDBEPWwB3KoS9zdKWxDO0=; b=lSU1uIIiDfd6v1b+w1V8junsB8TzQ+M1qB0v66hkyzwGVcDfbaKag1V1UjSEvNzIa5 8KAf8M/r3ZeHhUk4ymdiYG5u9s7mC4n0PDJDP4x+0FEBMLGWGcDNHhnuIw14m7bWwioc j985pdiVXaYz+2ZemwL7UTI96hu+gwbYH2hHTDrHne7OfveyIIFZDNw2IFcrg0veYhvq jRnVayxotYkqqm7n4R0ATy5iZmQQ1whH+YGfOsPFziv7NVzJX4EGj4aj7xWdPBwWHG/z Io8Lffbd3z6IyqMJRtAb5T5GYY8KjoQGxqwClSKXEZIDadTckh4T9BriOGIm3pE3/lWW xZ9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3YxafR3O8o70uJFbCe2MsEi3WC12umHYd0khHDqlKncLoMQCdlya+exxzAdDNlfVMhfsYdWV955wicIA==
X-Received: by 10.107.7.29 with SMTP id 29mr4357994ioh.57.1490979678464; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.90.71 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.90.71 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6C78BE2C-58B6-4A3A-B42A-C8A46D68B730@ericsson.com>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <6B662F87-B0E6-4613-B406-8A22CA95DFA5@cisco.com> <4917F161-2EC8-43E0-AF4C-BFAEE44A492C@cable.comcast.com> <198e3116-5448-2fdf-4da7-4811a0133f05@gmail.com> <50E4A84C-F0ED-45ED-AA89-5713CBD8F9E0@gmail.com> <5aebc8ed-f873-94e9-1ae4-dab7b3a8ebef@gmail.com> <CA+b+ERk8kHWyBY3GPp21-pgrL_SsShaLkrn4UdecFeQPYamSEg@mail.gmail.com> <A0F19A98-7DBE-4616-B949-529ED2A81D62@ericsson.com> <CA+b+ERk_cKGB6a0SQd560cMiOzT4KbSic6fCCwQWrhNkNEcO3Q@mail.gmail.com> <76ABEAE0-6A89-4C69-82ED-968F949A3B19@employees.org> <CA+b+ERmqpRuw0z4ZQkhNYfEqGvqEJKYwM0hkuWg8dZrYXT4DdQ@mail.gmail.com> <FCFFDDCF-7A53-41E2-B414-53E568C92B35@employees.org> <CA+b+ERmELF1p_5vX_nqhB58Bm8c34N6=kkijuCRYkfkQcfKneQ@mail.gmail.com> <0ae6ba21-0529-e9ca-ab74-b18a85acad4a@gmail.com> <CA+b+ERm7vO-ZpSHKLvY+BfgWpMa7+abKR6BFnXkgUuUPEXYVEg@mail.gmail.com> <6C78BE2C-58B6-4A3A-B42A-C8A46D68B730@ericsson.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:01:17 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: E6x5kIRftUWjxojt1TDqHM_CxjE
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERk4mbHrTZi3JFKBh4RjUzN=SVUGONvFuEA5Ed178MzZmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Cc: "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, otroan@employees.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ea6f01a39d7054c09c2ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/frWtGxXCdmIV95CSLwWpyQdH6Qc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 31 Mar 2017 17:01:23 -0000

Hi Suresh,

As you requested one of many quotes from the draft which your clarification
to 2460bis directly contradicts with:

This include either:

      A host originating an IPv6 packet.

      *An SR domain ingress router encapsulating a received IPv6 packet
      into an outer IPv6 header followed by an SRH.*


Cheers,
R.

On Mar 31, 2017 10:32, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> On Mar 31, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
> I do not understand how 2460bis makes it "easier" if proposed change to
> the text directly tries to prohibit what is described in a document already
> long time back accepted as a 6man working group draft.
>
>
> First of all, adopting something as a working group document only means
> that it is a starting point. Adoption of a document does not mean that
> there is WG agrees with all the text in the document. That is why the
> document goes under WG change control.
> Secondly, I have no idea what you are talking about in this specific case.
> What work in
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-06
>
> do you think is prohibited by this text? Can please provide a text quote
> from the draft?
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email