IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Errata #5933 for RFC8200

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 F30123A0DC9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:31:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 MW35tJEtMfHP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2B0A3A0CC6 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22B2080802; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 23:31:32 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Errata #5933 for RFC8200
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <0753535F-CBE0-4EC9-9FA9-03E036D0F660@gmail.com> <fbda8743-b794-7170-015b-5c5a832d2b19@si6networks.com> <1220E468-1E57-4B93-A14B-783F6CA28E92@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <08e2d74c-c124-a3bf-760b-27c54a8c64a6@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:31:27 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1220E468-1E57-4B93-A14B-783F6CA28E92@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/p4gR4MZbwX7gJq3u62r78-ubumo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:31:39 -0000

On 27/2/20 19:19, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
[....]
>>
>> Just to be clear, I believe that your stated decision of processing this errata as "Hold for document update" is not only incorrect, but also doesn't represent the consensus this working group got during the rfc2460bis effort -- now RFC8200.
> 
>>
>> It is also unfortunate to have a second instance of this, because, at the time the same group was pushing other IPv6 insertion/removal ideas, I also objected 6man shipping rfc2460bis as such. And we only got to improve on that during IETF LC.
>>
>> As such, I will formally Appeal your decision.
> 
> Please do go ahead. I stand by my assessment that this is a misuse of the Errata process and it is not a simple clarification as you claim.

For the third time, may I ask:

Can you please, as AD, answer these questions:

* Does IPv6 support IPv6 header insertion/removal along the packet 
delivery path?

* If you assume so, then, How does it play with core IPv6 functionality 
like:
     IPsec AH
     PMTUD
     error reporting

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email