IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Please review: 6MAN WG Adoption call: draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling-03

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 18 October 2015 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075C41ACECB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:39:38 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 MCHicqeyAYa6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (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 C11061ACEC9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by padhk11 with SMTP id hk11so7164202pad.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EMmOo5ugLJSblfqpv4js0A4jp7OxF4xnLLlBvfKnCPI=; b=htoZMy95Tgo/TX4qq+DZvrwuzpmdIRKhrScTO1MG6BZd+xTO1sMFPsA/5wJu4wrdAm 7qwqBbvs4fFwEPmtneiHDhK4CLCIBo1acX82b4rwZfnl1KomdE6HycgNT1A5llF7kl4b l+ALvuhU4BhNIw5jOTFe1WQUxITL6FZa7okV05rDS74PygZomgKiVwntjn2v24ZGApoY 6khsjyDX+Gy0trMYFxvyDuR1LKyt1/VwABhpcF/59DiwPl34RTSN2AMl4X7/FWQ2z6DA 6lA8ckr+o9sMGVMUTepS0ems/PRuh02Pn2BfdpzOWPxupBF0S3Llp9asHZtkvfQePJLx wLAg==
X-Received: by 10.68.139.100 with SMTP id qx4mr22417130pbb.149.1445197176320; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.25] (221.231.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.231.221]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pj10sm8806847pbc.59.2015.10.18.12.39.33 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Please review: 6MAN WG Adoption call: draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling-03
To: otroan@employees.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <8BD907B6-DCCF-4F3B-917C-DC82A8D49BB0@employees.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <5623F573.6070105@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:39:31 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8BD907B6-DCCF-4F3B-917C-DC82A8D49BB0@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qcX2x3fTh5jgoi_ohdQ9VqZ__Vo>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:39:38 -0000

Hi,

Yes, I think the WG should adopt this topic. In particular, I support
the key recommendation:

> Packets containing the Hop-by-Hop Extension Header SHOULD be
> processed at substantially the same rate as packets that do not.

I do have a few comments on the current text:

> At this writing, there are several defined Hop-by-Hop options:

This list should probably mention the experimental options defined
in RFC 4727.

> 2.3.  Adding headers or options in transit

I have extreme doubts about this. I believe that RFC 2460 intended to
forbid this but was loosely worded ("extension headers are not processed
by any node along a packet's delivery path"). When the time comes, I will
argue  that 2460bis should correct this. In any case, if this section is
retained, it needs to discuss MTU issues. I don't see why that belongs
in the Security Considerations.

> 3.  Interoperation with RFC 2460

Should probably be adjusted to refer to 2460bis.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email