Re: [Spud] updated draft PLUS charter, rev. 1 June

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

> On 09 Jun 2016, at 00:17, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/8/2016 3:38 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
>> So the situation with IPv6 EH seems to be slightly worse than the situation with UDP, probably harder to diagnose at runtime, and requires kernel support. So while I agree this is architecturally cleaner, I'm skeptical that it's as deployable as a UDP encapsulation-based approach.
> It'd useful to consider the impact of current non-compliant systems on
> new approaches, but not to be severely limited by them.

AFAIC, the marginal difference in brokenness between EH-based and UDP encapsulation-based approaches is way less important than lack of universal userspace access to extension headers. (I'm also not convinced that the types of path signaling envisioned in the use case draft are properly "network layer" -- since they involve the explicit participation of devices on path neither as packet forwarding devices at layer 3 nor as proper endpoints -- but that is a literally academic argument.)

It would be useful if whatever comes out of an eventual PLUS working group could be implemented either over UDP or IPv6 EH, since the lack of access to EH problem is simply a matter of changing APIs. But I'm not convinced that's a hard requirement.

> Nothing is universally deployable except HTTP in TCP, and we really
> don't need to be reinventing the Internet inside HTTP.

We also don't have to, since it's already been done.

Cheers,

Brian