IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8200 (5933)

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 03 March 2020 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 140A33A047F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 02:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 1OhK9p6UoOnv for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 02:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D26973A0474 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 02:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1j95Bl-0000JPC; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 11:54:13 +0100
Message-Id: <m1j95Bl-0000JPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8200 (5933)
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <20200302032940.9DE2EF406F3@rfc-editor.org> <3e4b460e-b77a-e04b-d7fc-d4cb889c284d@gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB6348A46BE210A777CDE302C6AEE70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 2 Mar 2020 16:51:12 +0000 ." <DM6PR05MB6348A46BE210A777CDE302C6AEE70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 11:54:12 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pjTaXTGbwxt2iaK405i5LCnTHq4>
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: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 10:54:24 -0000

> RFC 8200 has some fleas on it. When we reviewed the 8200-bis draft,
> we couldn't see those fleas because we all knew what we meant to
> say.

It seems to me that the bigger question is whether there would be 
consensus to update RFC8200 to allow whatever SPRING wants to do.

To some extent I'm surprised by this discussion. We allow NAT64 which
violates core IPv6 specifications in serious ways. We happily write
specifications for NAT64 without granting an explicit exception.

And then for a relatively besign operation such as removing a routing
header, we have to be as strict as possible.

Ultimately, the important part is not what is written in RFC-8200.
The important part is whether there is consensus that whatever SPRING
tries to do a good thing or that it is damaging the internet.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email