Re: I-D Action: draft-gont-6man-rfc6564bis-00.txt

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

Hi,

I don't think we should really decide about this draft until we've
first decided about draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header.

However, I don't think it fixes the problem anyway. Firewalls that
drop unknown extension headers or transport protocols today will be
modified to drop unknown Universal Extension Header subtypes tomorrow,
so it will still be impossible to deploy new extensions unless firewalls
are regularly updated. All the rules we put in RFC7045 for handling
extension headers will have to be put in RFC7045bis for handling
Universal Extension Header subtypes. I think the problem is
simply recursive.

Nits: this draft should both obsolete 6564 and update 2460 if approved.

There should be an Informative Reference to
draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header. In fact sections 3
and 4 duplicate arguments from that draft.

> The entire Section 4 of [RFC6564] is hereby replaced as follows:

This document claims to obsolete 6564. Therefore you can't state
that you are replacing one section - you need to include everything
from 6564 that you want to keep.

> 8. IANA Considerations

This is incomplete. You have to request a new protocol number for
the new header type (and it must go in the IPv6 Extension Header Types
registry as specified in RFC7045).

   Brian