Re: [OPSEC] [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-03

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 21/10/2017 12:36, Fernando Gont wrote:
> (sorry for top-posting)
> 
> I meant: everywhere there's diverging behaviour between rfc2460 and
> rfc8200, note both behaviors.
> 
> We can center discussion on rfc8200, and make refs to rfc2460 look like
> "notes" (e.g., "rrc2470 used to blah blah...').

Exactly right. I think that I already proposed text in that spirit
for the RH0 case.

   Brian

> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> Fernando
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> El 20 oct. 2017 4:42 p. m., "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
> escribió:
> 
>> On 20/10/2017 22:53, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>> Hello, Bob,
>>>
>>> On 10/04/2017 06:38 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I also don’t think this is ready for a w.g. last call.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn’t reference the new version of the IPv6 specification
>>>> RFC8200.  There were a number of clarifications in RFC8200 regarding
>>>> extension headers that may require changes in the draft.
>>>
>>> We talked a bit about this. Best option seems to be to keep the current
>>> text and add text regarding the changes in RFC8200 -- at the end of th
>>> day, an operator will have to deal with both RFC2460 and RFC8200
>>> implementations.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I don't think that is 100% right. Yes, of course add a general note at
>> the front stating that the current standard is 8200 but that many
>> implementations were based on 2460. But then, change all the references
>> to 8200 and add text where there is an actual difference between the
>> two cases. So far I think two have been pointed out:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/StjbjvCP9PLC3ssnTKYO6jqFgk0
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/9FigBATRkVHAurXv3aNNR-Z46JU
>> but there may be others.
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>>
>