Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote on 07/04/2021 15:22:
> I guess that the authors could consider adding a sentence that it
> also doesn't provide any recommendation on how end hosts make use of
> extension headers, but that might be a bit incongruous in the sense
> that the document doesn't appear to talk about end host behaviour at
> all ...
well, this is kinda the concern that we as authors have.  The document 
is completely clear that it's descriptive, and not prescriptive, and 
there is an entire disclaimer section which points this out.  We get 
Tom's interest in having a document that tells forwarding stack software 
authors what to aim towards, but this isn't that document and we've got 
well-defined reasons for not wanting to move in that direction.

If Tom or others find that the idea of a descriptive-only document 
doesn't match what they would want, well ok, I guess that's 
understandable from the point of view of a software author - but 
consensus isn't unanimity either.  As you suggest, adding an extra 
sentence as a further disclaimer seems incongruous and I'm not sure that 
it would turn the document into a better version of itself.

Nick