Re: Updating to RFC6434 to deal with 8200-style header insertion by IPIP

On 03/11/2017 00:23, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
>> On 1 Nov 2017, at 20:17, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think we need to be clear about what is "inserting" is. To me, the word
>>> "inserting" means inserting to into something that already exists and has
>>> previously been created - cut apart, insert, glue back together.
>>
>> You can mince words here if you like, I don't mind.
>>
>> If someone wants to add a packet by encapsulating with a new IP header, then
>> they have to pick a destination address for that header, and if they keep the
>> same destination as the inner one, then the end host has to process two headers.
>>
>> So, if one wants to make the advice of 8200 useable in practice, then one
>> has to fix 6463.
>>
>> If one argues that this will hard and shouldn't be done, then 8200 must be
>> wrong in some way.
> 
> So the 6man chairs were quite keen that we try to push 6434-bis to a conclusion in Singapore, which is a goal the authors are very happy to share.
> 
> Obviously, reopening this issue may prove to be contentious.  The simplest and easiest answer is to punt it to a separate draft, and wrap up 6434-bis. I *think* the only other contentious issue that’s still open for the -bis is what we choose to say, or not say, about RAs vs DHCPv6.  In my view, wherever possible we should be just including pointers to existing text in other RFCs, and minimising any additional interpretation.

Yes. I think it would be a misuse of a "node requirements" document to specify
something that isn't already well specified elsewhere.

> Having said that, why don’t you try to write some succinct text in advance of the Singapore 6man slot, post it, and see what the reaction is?  Worst case, you’ll then have the basis for a separate draft.

We need this. Michael is correct that it's a gap in the standards.

    Brian

> 
> Tim
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 