RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-01.txt

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Fernando,

Fully agree with your first change. Just for the pleasure chatting: BGP is indeed an app while ICMP is the control part of the network layer, let's reserve a beer to discuss about this. 

Regarding the 'IPv6 header chain', indeed RFC 2460 does not define 'chain' but specifically write about 'IPv6 extension headers' as w/o upper-layer protocol, hence, 'IPv6 header chain' could be confusing. I.e. I am using this wording to address the extension header chain (ellipsis of mine). Your I-D clearly defines it so no big deal, just slightly confusing. I would prefer the word 'IPv6 header chain + next-layer header' but this is quite long of course.

-éric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: mardi 17 juillet 2012 15:15
> To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-01.txt
> 
> Hi, Eric,
> 
> Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments inline...
> On 07/17/2012 07:35 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> > As I said in Paris, very useful I-D which is really important for
> stateless firewalls (read switch ACL).
> >
> > Two minor comments:
> > - section 2.0 I would also explicitly add ICMP in addition to UDP &
> > TCP
> 
> How about e.g. s/UDP/ICMPv6/, since, after all, "UDP" was just there as an
> example? (I'd prefer to do this rather to add yet another protocol, since it
> might lead people to think that the list is exhaustive.. when it's not).
> 
> 
> > (as ICMP is not really an upper-layer protocol as it is the control
> > engine of the network layer)
> 
> From the point of view of encapsulation, I view ICMP as an upper layer
> protocol -- although it clearly provides a function at lower layers.
> 
> A similar example would be BGP, which is an "app" protocol, but provides
> functions for the network layer.
> 
> 
> > - not sure whether an upper-layer header could strictly be part on the
> > IPv6 extension header chain (at least not per RFC 2460)
> 
> Well, I'd consider the upper-layer header being part of the "ipv6 header
> chain" (*) since they are identified with the same namespace used for
> extension headers.
> 
> (*) I've just skimmed through RFC 2460, and it doesn't mention/define the
> term "header chain".
> 
> 
> Two possible options:
> 1) Leave the doc "as is"
> 
> 2) s/IPv6 header chain/header chain/
> This one might address the issue you've raised, but then some might argue
> that "the entire header chain could also mean that e.g. an app-layer header
> should be included".
> 
> 
> I'd rather stick with 1, but I'm certainly open to suggestions. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> > Even as the I-D is, it is ready for WGLC IMHO
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
>