[Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09
Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 11 April 2017 19:14 UTC
Return-Path: <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D8212951B; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 qWctKzCg6tWX; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x230.google.com (mail-wr0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3905E127010; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l28so4171779wre.0; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:subject:to:cc:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zxlUSKEaMm1Eq+h1p4NutfP7p+TiI+7JXyhJxV/1z+M=; b=GLAGTPH3aHn7YILqAmHozC6KYDZ5MClWv6XZ+YDCizM6kUoIQzxvo/U+hozFDOM60O OcA5Z4/njNL6zm5VFOSBzyPkaqMsgijOp83wl2WaM/phfi7nlyNVHc0Q7iMH8tzFy+vC /FitYubE4LIQigFIylZmK/ajV5mih4x8OnuXy54PrUnqSF50IzfJbsBee3+r0WKytev0 2BKV7XPIXQz7jWv7aT/Iwu7mkOkba7/KI/zU/nACpC5HGxhZX07R6/zxlciWN/SxLeSy wlCDLYUJxnP0Kyf22zfb8M21YsMhkLS57c7mSOxiPVGCfih6V/GiHnjR/Y3EKIzL3qsI sHCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zxlUSKEaMm1Eq+h1p4NutfP7p+TiI+7JXyhJxV/1z+M=; b=R2cVmObCUHUqXA9IkdrIFdwQSfnG2xJH2MpwITgfmX8Hk1Xe4CyvZwZjNTAvXUsYoF poGce2bk0srsyi1oQEp5BwSFJx8MwmXFnKnfRSoQBKpub0xkUgXIus4LAm7sDLOAJ8F3 +jz8ic/wohhCOyJaEKwtcsYBiaWL0d3/i9E8VF9oOlq5fVdjTWzsZj+7Thsm3rL0SO0V zalEpD+ccJuQKjJBhY/oDhhMy7kGzJ2/+cpWC8PD1DKRVGxwVKLCvgUce2cqeOs9gLJU 1D8GZ+HPInvnoxnGhqNbr7BVO2D9cmrRsrmUU6MRMZIeO2j6zxiSW+zPGzsqNFMacsfn A1OA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1oBoPa+7BsnkCFXQNWRyJmc8aYHb7CAx/VLLgILOTBnpfEx68XaWzKJIrhv+zIrQ==
X-Received: by 10.223.144.8 with SMTP id h8mr49392107wrh.45.1491938048169; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2003:6:1575:649:78ae:9e4f:62ab:8918? (p200300061575064978AE9E4F62AB8918.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:6:1575:649:78ae:9e4f:62ab:8918]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id d7sm22638188wrc.6.2017.04.11.12.14.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1ff5b4e0-c2bb-0f00-97af-c1b888e29833@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 21:14:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/i7-sUG-t8ZD6QycTas-Z5kbpZvE>
Subject: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:14:12 -0000
Hi, I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area review team (TSV-ART) ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@… if you reply to or forward this review. Sorry for being so late with the review... Summary: This draft has serious issues out of a transport area perspective, described in the review, and needs to be rethought. Major issues: - Section 4.8. "Defining New Extension Headers and Options": It says new hop-by-hop headers must never ever defined. This is problematic, as this closing the door forever, even if future instances of the IETF do would like to wish to define new hop-by-hop headers. A better way would have to say "that new hop-by-hop headers must have IETF consensus". - Section 4.8. "Defining New Extension Headers and Options": Also the „not recommended“ to define new extension headers looks strange, especially with the phrase "There has to be a very clear justification". The term "clear justification" is not an exact engineering specification. Why not using "technical protocol specification and real word use case required, plus IETF consensus"? Minor issues: none. Thank you, Martin Stiemerling
- [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc24… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-r… C. M. Heard
- Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-r… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-r… Bob Hinden