Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (5933)

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 12/12/2019 à 06:45, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> On 11/12/19 23:22, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Yes, a note that updating Segments Left is legal would fix it I think.
> 
> It would seems to me that more is needed. For instance, for RHT0 you had
> to swap the address in the Destination Address with  with the next
> segment in the RHT0 payload.
> 
> So I guess the text should look something like:
> 
>      A Routing Header is not inserted, or deleted by any node along a
>      packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the final
>      destination node (or each of the set of final destination nodes, in
>      the case of multicast). A Routing Header is not processed by any
>      node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the
>      destination node (or each of the set of destination nodes, in the
>      case of multicast) identified by the Destination Address field of
>      the IPv6 header.
> 
> ?
> 
> I wonder if it might be better to keep the insertion/deletion part in a
> single place, to avoid repetiton, and then just discuss processing, but
> not insertion/deletion.

I think indeed the insertion/deletion part would deserve a single place 
for its own.  It should be clear by reading it in one place that 
intermediaries (routers in a 15 hop path in the Internet, exhibited by 
traceroute) do not touch a packet originated by an end node other than 
decrementing the Hop Limit and Segments Left, if present.

>  -- Or whether repetition is needed for each of
> the "special" EHs, such that folk do not assume that the comments on
> insertion/deletion do not applyto the "special" EHs.

Suffices it to say _all_ EHs in one place.  But then one has to define 
what is an EH.  'EH' is an acronym used exclusively in email 
discussions, currently.  I took it for an AH version when first saw it.

Alex

> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
>