Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 10 February 2017 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90152129590; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:29:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <ltUzH9tl9eXW>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Cc"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ltUzH9tl9eXW; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:29:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E186129552; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net ([::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #127) id m1cc9Nu-0000CGC; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:29:02 +0100
Message-Id: <m1cc9Nu-0000CGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: 6man@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com> <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org> <8D401C5B-C3C3-4378-9DFA-BF4ACC8E9DAF@qti.qualcomm.com> <D2D907D5-84B4-43BB-9103-F87DA9F122EB@employees.org> <33DC7B74-D240-4FF2-A8FF-C9C5A66809EE@qti.qualcomm.com> <1179DE45-3971-44A1-9630-28F76D2D652D@employees.org> <2ea64b3c-d69d-6b6c-cb04-fe63727a8bee@si6networks.com> <23C46409-337C-468D-BCDC-34027BB56CAD@employees.org> <30715b9e-e9b7-320e-f9e2-fc3f64615d5c@si6networks.com> <75774ea9-86e8-7353-b4fc-58cad402ffe0@gmail.com> <753c70f9-5159-8a8b-a364-90e73ec1fc8e@si6networks.com> <C14D7BF0-6A06-4276-A7F8-9CE9DFE4F793@employees.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:36:54 +0100 ." <C14D7BF0-6A06-4276-A7F8-9CE9DFE4F793@employees.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:29:00 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/v5ZQ6KS_i5kKN-SVmiPNQLP36KY>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis@tools.ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:29:11 -0000

>E.g. the response to your argument in this email:
>1.a.i) Out of scope: Argue the point of header insertion or alternatives 
>in the context of those proposals, not in the context of the core IPv6 
>specification. Do not try to make a preemptive strike in the core 
>specification.

Quoting from this draft (Section 4):
"With one exception, extension headers are not processed by any node
"along a packet's delivery path

"The exception referred to in the preceding paragraph is the Hop-by-
"Hop Options header

I guess somebody has to come up with a creative interpretation of this 
text that allows segment routing headers to be removed along the way.