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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 16/03/2017 07:14, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/15/2017 9:33 AM, Leddy, John wrote:
>> Does this mean that only middle boxes, not covered by the architecture could insert an extension header for use within the domain?
> Please see my recent post about Stefano's issue. IMO, any opaque
> (distributed) system that acts like a host can follow the host (node)
> requirements.
> 
> The instant that system is not opaque or fails to act like a single
> host, it becomes noncompliant.

That's the point. That's why the 6man WG shot down proposals to play
intra-domain tricks with the flow label a few years ago, and they
didn't even break PMTUD or IPsec/AH.

In another form, the answer to John is that there are no protocol police,
so what consenting adults do inside their own networks simply isn't an
issue that an Internet-wide spec can or should address. And for sure, the
spec for IPvN for any value of N is an Internet-wide spec.

If Stefano and colleagues describe how private domains can perform tricks
that MUST NOT be exported to the Internet, that is fine. Whether that
becomes a standards track document or an Independent Submission RFC is
another question. But IMHO it is completely orthogonal to the rough
consensus on 2460bis.

    Brian