Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 6:53 PM Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
> On 27-Nov-19 15:01, Tom Herbert wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 5:19 PM Brian E Carpenter
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27-Nov-19 14:00, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> >> ....
> >>>
> >>> I am in agreement with individual submission.
> >>
> >> Nobody has suggested an "individual submission" RFC, which means direct submission to the IESG for the IETF stream, sponsored by an AD.
> >>
> >> The alternatives that have been suggested are
> >> 1) WG Informational submission to the IETF stream.
> >> 2) Independent Submission (https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/). Also see RFC 4846 and RFC 5744 if you are not familiar with the Independent Submission process.
> >>
> >> Personally, I'm in favour of documenting reality, as this draft does, and as long as it's Informational I really don't care which RFC Stream is used.
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > To me, this "reality" would be akin to acknowledging a serious bug but
> > simply marking it "will not fix" instead of actually fixing it. Both
> > the detrimental consequences of EH insertion and conformant
> > alternatives to it have been articulated several times on this list,
> > but we've seen little effort from the extension header insertion
> > proponents to take those into account or to work with WG to resolve
> > the issues.
>
> I don't think that's fair. The current version of the draft is utterly
> different from the original, and the tone of the discussion at IETF 106
> was constructive (http://ietf106.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recordings#6MAN_II).
>

Brian,

That's fine that it was a productive meeting and yes the draft has
improved, but as others have already pointed out real work and
decisions only happens on the list. We really need productive
discussion here.

> The proposal by the WG chairs seems very balanced to me. Work on documenting
> why header insertion that escapes a limited domain is harmful (Mark's draft)

I believe that mischaracterizes Mark's draft (I am also an author of
the draft). The message of that draft is that IPv6 extension header
insertion is harmful without qualification. Neither does RFC8200 have
any provisions or exceptions that would change the behavior or
requirements on the basis of the environment the protocol is run. For
instance, the loss of attribution of packet contents to the source,
which is fundamental to IP protocols, is not resolved by restricting
use to a limited domain.

> and work on documenting existing practice in real products and real
> networks.

Okay, but if the WG is going to work on this, doesn't that mean it
needs to be Working Group item? Will there be a call working group
adoption on the list?

> We often document existing practice, on the grounds that it's
> better than ignoring it. That's what draft-voyer--08 does.

We definitely have not been ignoring this! There has been substantial
feedback already on various versions of the draft.

Tom

>
>    Brian
>
>