IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 17 April 2017 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 C53F8129445; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 sghKDXHJTGYr; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x244.google.com (mail-pf0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::244]) (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 615C2128A32; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id g23so12195919pfj.1; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NH5XlAOY1MMusjZeA0HLofJZNCmoTbP/yB7CLwONqms=; b=LRK+sIMz9pD7cW9o7caV1cqIc6gNtbsCh1wW2f5lP6H1t8R7SM0nZuBwLyN2eQCvaN W2dt4KChjfwotFwMN76kQQiVOU1G/SD43ZFXzb09nY8/YGFjbDKpUKRItcOrZ+3m5brR avx1jNQ6PISqXm2b4LCvn/3lKWquIGkiwST1mA+RB2MgSRT07mpOGCJWYYK51+ksU3io mrf6NzKjwOu9lQKKWJFkTPQx4c9Spoct811VvxSm6uOLz3dDq8YU4QNCv2jl7SLtyRul 3J6BGkEi5588eqnvsEGgMIesm3gslej8WTBM0IhsyAVFNbIXErriisSfsivAf0aoDonN WfCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NH5XlAOY1MMusjZeA0HLofJZNCmoTbP/yB7CLwONqms=; b=Kd2LtKDNhGTQY2MstxNfQo2qTny+DMRVKrGcEsG9OuyokNmo4c2jpg4OuiSptF52x0 OFGB7r3586sPfWSF9ijzWlyYIJevYwwEISfn2wLRZKvMSw+1cDxAP0RoP9yWgbYPEo10 eHvSWQsYZjrf87xK/6V/Z8/HFUabJW5vugs0MIXEurjGcuVFF+ET1XdJrb/vDN27FGbH 0hBNdTp/iBP5QoqujieIKePBo+pcBvl++G6GvytzmNWs6qviBx638BmGt4bbbOxpW69o SS1mntKbgjjgA+Cc4HNLE3HZ4MNiYcFvW3nhHb91Kv8FM4HKuki8qquk5bCEyBsrfL9V LDKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6gsaY6BeuiDH92VGGf+XfkDH9vRD72MvhB3RZkEHOmsuTfgDv8 KzSLKpqRKj0QteuJ/fs=
X-Received: by 10.99.103.3 with SMTP id b3mr14020442pgc.39.1492460502800; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3f9b:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3f9b:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t3sm9936524pfi.127.2017.04.17.13.21.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
References: <CACL_3VEEO_TZQ2jtvn07xkX-fgtR9JhGnpmr5FURve5EtjvGow@mail.gmail.com> <05A79674-5D9C-44EA-B768-E82F04956D41@gmail.com> <e1ec2a9e-2e38-3c74-c289-207a569acdac@gmail.com> <CACL_3VFANz3qAV9gwvPBz_147MBR7hF5Yb=rYjqDA0rbSKqu-w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@ietf.org, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <0071275d-33d9-f0a6-8867-ee447d4e16f8@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:21:38 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VFANz3qAV9gwvPBz_147MBR7hF5Yb=rYjqDA0rbSKqu-w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jeigN22fzyU7xMT-3gFp5Pl1AUI>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:21:45 -0000

On 18/04/2017 04:15, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Do we have any evidence that the guidance in RFC 3168 regarding
>>> reassembling IPv6 fragments is implemented?  I don’t know, but think if
>>> it there is evidence I agree some text should be added to rfc2460bis, if
>>> not, then maybe not.
>>
>> In any case, somebody needs to submit an erratum for RFC 3168, since it
>> lacks "Updates: 2460".
> 
> I started to do that and then noticed that RFC 3168 also lacks "Updates: 791".
> Instead, RFC 3168 updates RFC 2474, which in turn obsoletes RFC 1349, which
> in turn updates RFC 791 (and several other IPv4 RFCs). But RFC 2474 itself
> lacks "Updates: 2460". So maybe the erratum should be filed against RFC 2474.
> On the other hand, all that RFC 2460 Section 7 does with respect to the
> Traffic Class field is to define a set of general requirements and defer all
> the details to future RFCs. So tt's not clear to me whether RFC 2474 does, in
> fact, update RFC 2460. I'll leave the decision on whether to file the erratum
> to someone else who has better skills at navigating these tangled webs.

RFC 2474 adds to RFC 2460; it doesn't change any of the behaviour defined by
2460, so it isn't IMHO a case for "Updates". If we had a tag "Extends", then
"Extends: 2460" would be appropriate.

RFC 3168 changes the RFC 2460 algorithm for reassembly, so IMHO it's an "Updates: 2460".

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email