Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: NH=59 action item closure

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019, 06:33 Brian E Carpenter, <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Ron,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > Isn't this [the Opaque header] also creating an opportunity for IETF WGs
> to bypass IANA, creating their own registry, likely run badly?
>
> More than that, it's creating an opportunity for operators to bypass IETF
> standards as well as IANA.
>
> Isn't that the essence of this whole discussion?
>
> They can do it anyway, but defining the code point at least makes it
> possible for firewalls to discard such traffic if it escapes. Hence my
> comment about draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering.
>


The word "opaque" means (from Google "meaning opaque"),

"not able to be seen through; not transparent"

If a protocol is opaque or not transparent to the IETF then that would mean
somebody else owns it; it's their property rather than the IETFs.

So somebody else's protocol being referred to by the IETF would fit the
definition of "proprietary":

"relating to an owner or ownership"


So I think Proprietary would be a much more accurate name for this option
if it were to go ahead.

I'd much rather it didn't so we had a transparent and open IETF protocol.

Regards,
Mark.


> Regards
>    Brian
>