Re: Removal of destination options that precede a routing header

[Sander Steffann <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
> Dare I say It as I don’t want to start another long and exhausting email thread 😉 but it is kind of interesting as knowing this helps to clarify that when RFC 8200 is talking about the node identified in the destination address field of the IPv6 header then said node is able to process, delete and insert extension headers according to the text; in order to process DOH before a RH then that node must be the router as identified in the DA of the incoming packet and not the ultimate destination as previously argued in another thread.

I do interpret the text in a different way, but I agree that the current text can be interpreted like you describe as well. I'm not sure that was the intention, but that is what it is, and second guessing intention afterwards is rather pointless, so… :)

I do think that header insertion/deletion between the source and final destination can be harmful, but let's resolve that by looking forward to what we actually want. Looking back at 8200 and disagreeing on what it says isn't very productive. We already know we disagree. Let's provide better guidance to future protocol designers.

Cheers,
Sander