Re: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-08.txt

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

There is no reason I know of for the IETF to publish an RFC on the IETF 
stream that describes interesting ways that deployers have violated 
RFCs.  If the deployers want an RFC, the Independent Stream can be used 
to publish such things.  Particularly if the document actually describes 
meaningful values for there violation.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/23/2019 6:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Sander,
> 
>> - I object to not updating RFC8200 in any RFC that contradicts its content. If EH insertion should be accepted by this WG despite the objections then implementers reading RFC8200 need to know that a conscious exception has been made.
> 
> So, it sounds as if you are against publishing true facts. This draft describes an implementation and operational practice. I completely agree that it violates RFC8200, which standardises IPv6 for the Internet. I wouldn't object to adding an explicit statement of this to the draft, because that's also a true fact. But I would be very sad if the IETF is now against publishing factual information about actual practice that we are not willing to standardise, in line with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.2 paragraph 2.
> 
> If we had standardised mechanisms for establishing limited domains, we could do better than that, but we aren't there yet.
> 
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>