Re: New Consensus call on RH0 Deprecation

On 20-aug-2007, at 22:43, Bob Hinden wrote:

> We would like to get your comments on the following two choices:

> 1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in <draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate- 
> rh0-01.txt>.

> 2) Revising the draft to restrict the usage of RH0.  This would  
> continue to require RH0 to be implemented but would restrict the  
> functionality of RH0.  For example, require nodes to have support  
> for RH0 turned off by default, limit the number of RH0 headers in a  
> packet to one, limit the number of addresses in the RH0 to a  
> smaller number (e.g., 6), and and a requirement that addresses can  
> only be in the header once.

My objections to the draft:

- I do not consider this a security issue as such
- I don't consider this text to be proper use of the word  
"deprecate", "remove" would be more appropriate
- not specified that processing the header in a system functioning as  
a host is erroneous
- overly aggressive stance on future use of the mechanism

So if the above are my only two choices, I'm coming down in favor of 2.

However, what I'd really like to see is a clear statement that hosts  
MUST NOT send out packets not generated locally, for reasons of the  
RH0 header or otherwise, and "optional to implement" and "off by  
default" language. That leaves current and future implementations the  
freedom to implement and administrators to enable the mechanism if  
and when desired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------