IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

"Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com> Wed, 15 March 2017 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <John_Leddy@comcast.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 E27BF131710; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IJihrUvtmIRy; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaadcmhout01.cable.comcast.com (vaadcmhout01.cable.comcast.com [96.114.28.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01A5E1316A1; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 60721c4b-957ff700000006b0-02-58c96cdd6ec3
Received: from VAADCEX42.cable.comcast.com (vaadcmhoutvip.cable.comcast.com [96.115.73.56]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA256 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (SMTP Gateway) with SMTP id B7.A1.01712.DDC69C85; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:33:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from VAADCEX41.cable.comcast.com (147.191.103.218) by VAADCEX42.cable.comcast.com (147.191.103.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:33:32 -0400
Received: from VAADCEX41.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe12:e268]) by VAADCEX41.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe12:e268%19]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:33:32 -0400
From: "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
Thread-Topic: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
Thread-Index: AQHSnaSAxRLtjcu1EUaNXmYCyEu8g6GWVuWAgAABTAD//8BKAA==
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:33:32 +0000
Message-ID: <A67E1C07-282B-4422-A2FF-86F6CACBD775@cable.comcast.com>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <37ED3E78-B23A-4D29-8597-5A63236129B1@cisco.com> <887bd0f0-32a5-56f1-9ac9-703ecb97a760@gmail.com> <80D8FFF0-2674-48A7-A935-11681F5C5A4D@jisc.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <80D8FFF0-2674-48A7-A935-11681F5C5A4D@jisc.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [96.115.73.253]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6B5658A0B408DE478EE7BA7F06511FEB@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Forward
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrBIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWSUOxpoXs/52SEwYSJTBZtF/cxWbx6e43N 4tnG+SwWL8++Z7JYv/sRk0Xfz8dsDmweU35vZPXYOesuu8eSJT+ZPFb+vsIWwBLFZZOSmpNZ llqkb5fAlbHv2hPGglVcFYfnfWFrYOzg6mLk5JAQMJHYt/kEWxcjF4eQwEwmiR/rvzJCOIcY JdpaW6AyJxklHmx4zgbSwiagIzFj2jVWEFtEIFzi8ad2ZpAiZoETjBLLJu1nB0kIC3hITNp0 jQWiyFNi3cbDULaTxOQ3+8BqWARUJVbOvwdm8wq4SNx71QNWIyRwk1Hi91oJEJtTwE5i/qdf TCA2o4CYxPdTa8BsZgFxiVtP5jNB/CAgsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/YMeJCuhJPLx3kxUiriNx9voT RgjbQGLr0n0sELaixL4PK4B6OYBmakqs36UPMd5B4vCPB6wQtqLElO6HUGcKSpyc+QSqVVzi 8JEdrBMYpWchuWgWwqRZSCbNQjJpFpJJCxhZVzHKlSUmpiTnZuSXlhgY6iUnJuWk6iXn5yYn FpeA6E2MoPRQJOO9g3HdT/dDjAIcjEo8vN9DTkYIsSaWFVfmAqOKg1lJhLctCyjEm5JYWZVa lB9fVJqTWnyIUZqDRUmc95LI6gghgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYLBMHp1QDoxK39Q/zFVeWhxt0L16+ 1rd+wpvCw/z/7NebrTD85VG2IJKnPXfaK7UQA67/qbUcPVvMStcvzmf5JPropLp3Jc8FYYfu TqVI98Q9/jNL2X4lue/Y+dvDfQKzr3WF6KmOUGXryQ8YYuceZ3IWnGTl1sO49qzTBK+lSoz7 eU7O9+zhivTxeOyuxFKckWioxVxUnAgA0wR6fAsDAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/kLHiQEdhk6XjbhT7rMHG0bQeGeY>
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: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:33:38 -0000

Does this mean that only middle boxes, not covered by the architecture could insert an extension header for use within the domain?

John

On 3/15/17, 12:21 PM, "ietf on behalf of Tim Chown" <ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:

    Hi,
    
    > On 15 Mar 2017, at 16:16, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 
    > Stefano,
    > On 16/03/2017 04:55, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
    > ...
    >> In the mean time, I think it is way too premature to come to conclusion on what text should be used for RFC2460bis and I recommend that the current text is left unchanged until we figured out what to do with EH insertion.
    > 
    > I believe that we have figured it out: extension header insertion is harmful to Internet interoperability.
    > 
    > I fully agree with Suresh's understanding of the rough consensus.
    
    I also agree with Suresh’s appraisal. 
    
    Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email