Re: [v6ops] IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Dan,

On 10/03/2014 06:33 AM, Metzler, Dan J wrote:
> I would point out that my comments below imply that there is only one
> document under consideration for both "here's what I saw" and "here's
> what to do about it".

Just for clarification's sake: One might be tempted to assume that one
should/can codify the "here is what I saw" into the same document as the
"here is what to do about it" because the former is simply the "problem
statement" which will be addressed by the later.

However, I'm of the idea that that is an over-expectation.



> The problem statement and the solution are
> still presented in the same document.  "If" a problem statement or
> "here's what I saw" is presented in a separate document without a
> solution, purely for the sake of agreeing on the problem in a short
> period of time, typically I would expect another draft of the
> document to come along later with both "here's what I saw" and
> "here's what to do about it", and replace the previous one; not that
> you would maintain the two in separate documents.

The advice on filtering need not relate into a solution to the "here is
what I saw". For instance, I'm of the idea that if you want your
protocol to be able to work on the public Internet, it must be able to
operate without IPv6 EHs. IMO, I see the advice on filtering as
something "necessary, but not sufficient", if you want.

The advice on filtering is one of the action items resulting from the
"here's what we saw". But as noted on our I-D, there should be others,
like the IETF looking at which protocols rely on IPv6 EHs, and making
sure they can still work in the presence of packet filtering.

And you certainly do not want the "here's what we saw", "here's how we'd
like you to filter packets with EHs", "here's what the IETF should
consider when designing new protocols", because they tend to be rather
orthogonal, and also targeted at different communities.  -- the guy
doing the packet filtering is likely different from the guy developing
new protocols, etc.



> The idea that there might be a document under discussion in two
> separate WGs at the same time is really a separate discussion, and
> it's based purely the idea that two WGs are considering the same
> problem that determines the need for coordination between WGs; not
> the number of iterations (drafts) of a document.  I would hope that
> cooperation or coordination between WGs would happen just because it
> makes sense when you're both considering solutions to the same
> problem.  That's true regardless of how many drafts are created.

FWIW, I think that each of the related documents is clearly scoped. And
while it's nice to announce a document in all the relevant wgs, one can
always note that "discussion is expected to happen at this or that wg".
There have been so many instances of documents that might have happened
at two or three different wgs, and I don't think there has been a need
for "special coordination" among them -- but I guess I might be wrong.

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1