Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 963CA129698; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:45:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 XB5IlvuBS4bV; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x233.google.com (mail-ua0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::233]) (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 0D1B5129563; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 20so155028521uak.0; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:45:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RZlYN5i7vcWgAQxj+FGmILPvvMqDN6MSiRRq8MdmUhg=; b=nlzeC9MJljPp4ipApYJcLGoZndbBlzM5x8u0LuaTrIuT1L/oKqRsIVCpdikNvD49J3 QqfmNu9sA0ZTe+3GHA0iuRVLWQjQcP8OWAZgu+fmE7d9HFcMyw1StXdU+WmPKOz1vJ64 0Zdv9DoZ9m5S3+W2NpbDnR9K5gCxDM5s19t5rMahopBQCftcmWhS9WBn4q3VLNyPlO1/ VWyi4Il2Z6rX1UWCfSf7qoTt5yWOVfxgVU6QXdrIFzJJcEVzmDE3YvIeJ3B8sV54an1g b9b2z3WbiKtRBqEDtcsVJE4k91uFFRnLkHUbAJ893qfOim6SWDAZzbFSrB7XVAwxYq8L 0z6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RZlYN5i7vcWgAQxj+FGmILPvvMqDN6MSiRRq8MdmUhg=; b=D0Y5u+1Y0NFKrM4G0ZAO6r7CXrzPz/CE860JWGZy5eR+us6d1vEEaZmKkbkSecI9G+ PLWFpZPURN4OJAivIOq41BEQptanfrTiI07b8VxVkhT3PnsVXZqloefYt8UiUNEP5ImM +kEYIUWDcD1rojJfhu6USWpAFsm2ATZ18rD69hQCuvAXwsKvV6AJjhnngn89pxswV9QD n3amvPvm4XT7WzDGDhkbmueuo49kCcS4lroPdzD5IXv0bAyWDbNrWjV6UUQ7tvbH04xB yUr2pZ4IV4Fh8NG+xZvCYmYe9N5j8bdfqgDN9umMJbte6iuGgzK8DGkbV/NKwv+baXP9 toSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC037W6hGJC0sPq1M0QTysDwEW4bzL3tB0VwZ4RxtxRIB7xK5r1irvsNoY9/yr9bzdAITJYm0MzRxf3sqFQ==
X-Received: by 10.159.39.7 with SMTP id a7mr2911312uaa.95.1479419152310; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:45:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.48.212 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.159.48.212 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:45:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <189a5939-71c8-f686-b34c-cbf410d55374@gmail.com>
References: <451D4151-B805-4A2E-8BAC-B6627C0B669C@employees.org> <CAJE_bqczRSZYWC3tDLXvxRMzqnV9nDjYjUddyRHtwfpGEXvm5w@mail.gmail.com> <189a5939-71c8-f686-b34c-cbf410d55374@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:45:51 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2z_Zm82DZf9xusCUXPe=8pChZX7KR+9aEK38htfGge9Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Next steps on advancing core IPv6 specifications to full Internet standard
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1244f60c276f0541861dc3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gocVVmDHwbmhmVHTY_YJVJBJvus>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, 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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:45:57 -0000

On 17 Nov. 2016 07:03, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 17/11/2016 08:18, 神明達哉 wrote:
> ...
> > Assuming so, I'd like to say I still have a serious concern with this
> > text in that it's as "ambiguous" to the extent the original RFC2460
> > was ambiguous...
>
> I think the question of principle here is whether a document with
> a known ambguity is qualified to become an Internet Standard.
>
> If this WG can make no more progress on that question (and I have
> sympathy with the WG Chairs on that), it becomes a question for
> the community and the IESG during IETF Last Call.
>
> As far as I can tell, ambiguity is not mentioned explicitly in
> RFC 2026 or RFC 6410.
>

I think people might be assuming that ambiguity is the only cause of people
thinking EH insertion is permitted.

I think there are at least four potential other reasons:

- they've never read the EH section of RFC2460, which is clear about what
and where EHs are allowed and intended to be examined and processed.
(Specifically the second and third paragraphs, after the diagram.)

- they've read the EH section of RFC2460, understood it,  but they've since
forgotten what it said.

- they've read the EH section of RFC2460, understood it, but have chosen it
ignore it.

- they've read the EH section of RFC2460, however haven't fully understood
it properly because English is not their first language.

I would think in this last case it is likely that at least the term
"processed" would be understood, because a version of that word is part of
the acronym CPU.

I'd really like to see it explained how those EH sections if RFC2460 are
ambiguous before I'd be willing to accept that claim.

Regards,
Mark.

>    Brian
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------