[spring] IPv6 EH-insertion (Re: Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function))

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Ron,

On 5/9/19 06:01, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Fernando, Zhenqiang,
> 
> You both have valid points. Maybe I am becoming too tolerant of
> deviations from the specification.

This is not a deviation in the spec. It's an outright violation of the spec.

This topic has a rich history in 6man, which I will summarize as follows:

1) Folks proposed the segment routing header I-D with the argument that
it wasn't clear whether EH-insertion was allowed in RFC2460 or not --
when it was clear to virtually everyone else that it was forbidden

2) The segment-routing header I-D was adopted on the condition that all
text related to EH insertion should be removed.

3) Since we were in the process of doing rfc2460bis, we had the
discussion to make the text crystal-clear that EH-insertion was
forbidden. -- in fact, it already was. But based on 1) we discussed to
make it 200% clear.

4) Some folks argued not to add text on the topic, leaving, from their
pov, the spec ambiguous. This "version" of rfc2460bis was shipped from
the wg.

5) During IETF LC of rfc2460bis, the issue was raised again, and there
was finally consensus to add very explicit text noting that EH insertion
is forbidden. And this became RFC8200.


My question to the spring wg chairs and routing area ADs therefore is:
how come the wg adopted a document (e.g.:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-01)
when it contains outright violations of specs (RFC8200) that are not in
the charter of spring wg to update? (as far as I understand).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492