Re: comments on draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling
otroan@employees.org Wed, 11 November 2015 07:48 UTC
Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9B21B33E3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:48:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 DGvdGd1WbfBH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (cowbell.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:a000:17::142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA1D1B33E1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825C5D7886; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:48:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=houYM3509WdXmexPIpb3rTsnlC8=; b= Gg+myOYGei7i+zliU5FF7AfUWE/qNEGA4PFsnmdJBYZVS7P0MsUfDQT/wdxnaDhH bNW3VcD3/xJLAfw47Dxn88gRPJBdMJpCibOMqazNjOTaZNjjqXnptntQF9m84Z57 KXvDrhsVxwDkSQ1AWe7LxuQN4IbDKvvLUMLkS4jeBZM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=oCDOvTkTc/KVHOQnDoyXyNAro4 4ODQH0f14jHC17E8+YD31S3R7uDzrhjjxnIYRO7C24ihZjUA3D72MFKpOFRm9nKP cgYTekU0vYrUdAy2p4C/XW+/mjWgHQFjJJa8xb1lXPzaJllzwl06nQPi6R+32BqX 4R+CKJQfT2yhFrOCY=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (77.18.16.169.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.18.16.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3404D7884; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFAB59310F0; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:48:37 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: comments on draft-baker-6man-hbh-header-handling
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B051CA79-E5A1-4AD5-8D45-65F3AE5E6DEE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VHXVScv+5Arja-bP1bV-1hWQJK2vO3SP-JyjgoAj4mtzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:48:36 +0100
Message-Id: <633973DC-027D-441F-A7AF-BD86D4551655@employees.org>
References: <CACL_3VHXVScv+5Arja-bP1bV-1hWQJK2vO3SP-JyjgoAj4mtzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/x7GvXTfpoTiYl6KSDea_B37qtdU>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:48:48 -0000
> Regarding Section 2.3, Adding headers or options in transit: > > Use cases under current consideration take this a step further: a > router or middleware process MAY add an extension header, MAY add an > option to the header, which may extend the length of the Hop-by-Hop > Extension Header, or MAY process such an option in a manner that > extends both the length of the option and the Extension Header > containing it. > > This seems to me to be a violation of the basic architectural assumptions of > RFC 2460, and I don’t think that the 6man WG should go in that direction. I > would prefer to see this section of the draft removed and for RFC 2460bis to > state that processing at forwarding nodes MUST NOT alter the length of an > IPv6 option or of the extension header in which it resides. Yes, header injection would be a major change to the protocol and I believe fundamentally incompatible with taking RFC2460 to Internet standard. I would be perfectly fine with the work on header injection continuing outside of the context of RFC2460bis. Best regards, Ole