IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 10 October 2022 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD9FC15256B for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 07:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=employees.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KWkiLHTGCxxg for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 07:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vesa01.kjsl.com (vesa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:6::11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A915AC1522B1 for <spring@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 07:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=employees.org; i=@employees.org; q=dns/txt; s=vesa202009; t=1665412293; x=1696948293; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date: message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=hQ+dvQjhKhw5u+slasil1Pk/PggUMWL0ckPa4imVrZI=; b=cgTTdEAiYWDL9o1K0CbCjEnIJoMZm6tTEtPlu6YEdgk6d8txDG7SMDTG ZChSyPfSBlbvDMH7tQUJJKGJUtc4B/Gm0/tLLKTKFSe/vd59yK1cxBY4w N+Y9QVKs5rp4ap3nk7OAHb5ogKqMLVDBIkNy7XsCZAA3JLvC1fWo3vSDb 4zWlQMCfkO0+v2KqvqTT/KUlCuXpZGhfUqZJOu4wxbm1ysS1Vt+4rnUs1 90jTYYfyEI164X1CUFF+jCRSVREeP29DxMYcvFfz5YKMk3TVAKxIZPejS oC6liQv1OctVhWXD3IbPX3eK+og6xaeoIAOuMOhn8B9mMEnyTmgnjzKbK Q==;
Received: from clarinet.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by vesa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2022 14:31:31 +0000
Received: from smtpclient.apple (ti0389q160-5451.bb.online.no [95.34.1.139]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E16FB4E11AE9; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:31:30 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:31:17 +0200
Message-Id: <95BA9A88-CCC3-4E4B-9283-5BF38EDC79D0@employees.org>
References: <35484ed3-509a-39ba-6a16-8f2bf807f4f2@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <35484ed3-509a-39ba-6a16-8f2bf807f4f2@joelhalpern.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20A380)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/-svbiAItRZ0mdOzrOYLKdVBNPgs>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:31:37 -0000

Joel,

> On 10 Oct 2022, at 15:36, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> Eric, you seem to be objecting to something I did not say.  I have not asked, and do not expect, for the document to mandate or even suggest that arbitrary domains should drop packets with SRH.  I will note that given that SRH is explicitly for limited domains, an operator who chooses to drop such packets is well within his rights.  And I am told there are such operators.  But that is not what I asked for this document.

No, that would violate rfc8200. 

O.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email