Re: [Tsv-art] HbH flags [Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06]

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:11 AM Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Dec 5, 2018, at 10:28 PM, Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:31 AM Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Additionally, packets don’t emerge from different mole endpoints or are
>> IP  processed in any way. The mold acts like a wire, which is fine. That
>> can be done by IP tunnels too. But not routers that converge and diverge
>> packets.
>>
>
> That got mangled by autocorrect.  Packets aren’t supposed to be IP
> processed by links. To the extent that MPLS does this, it is broken vs the
> Internet arch.  Remember that MPLS tries to emulate a router path that
> can’t keep up.  It can - and does - fail to do so correctly in some cases.
>
>
Joe, frankly I'm pretty sad that your behavior here is such as this.
I would like the IETF Ombudsteam to have a  chat with you are your behavior
and your lack of listening to reasoned input from folk who both implement
and operate networks, equipment and the protocols which make up the
Internet at large. You are not helping your case nor the case of the
protocols in question.

If the ombudsteam are unable/unwilling to interact here I'd like the
responsible ADs for ops/tsv to have a chat with you about this.

Again, if HBH headers are meaningless and not needed, then go through the
>> proper process and remove them from IPv6. If not, stop trying to hobble
>> this protocol to the point where we all realize why nobody wants to use it.
>>
>>
> I think everyone here is actually happy to see v6 progress.
>
>
> As am I - in Standards.  It shouldn’t ‘progress’ on ops.
>
> note I'm not trying to be intentionally combative, just attempting to say:
> "the best answer for the user here is PROBABLY to just have the core ignore
> all the EH business entirely"
>
>
> Again, if they’re not needed, fine. Remove them in Standards.
>
> However, if the role of ops is to decide what standards to ignore, then
> perhaps the IESG should reconsider the area’s charter.
>
> Joe
>