Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-04.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 27-Jul-20 18:49, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 26/7/20 19:14, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> IMHO this is useful work.
>>
>>> A number of recent RFCs have discussed issues related to IPv6 extension headers,
>>
>> I suggest to add RFC7045 to the bullet list, and delete the reference to it
>> in the previous paragraph. In fact, the structure of the "Previous Work"
>> section is a bit strange, with a prose paragraph followed by a bullet list.
>> Maybe restructure that (e.g. transform it into a single longer bullet list)?
> 
> That's a good point.
> 
> I wonder if we could somehow separate:
> * Std work that has become incorporated into the core spec.
> 
> * Other Std work that affects EHs but hasn't been incorporated into the 
> core spec (e.g., RFC6980)

Sure, if binary separation is really possible.

> BTW... it seems that RFC7045 has not really been incorporated into 
> RFC8200?   

Well, yes and no. Firstly the point about HbH header processing
being essentially optional was adopted.  Similarly, RFC7045 says
"This document updates RFC 2460 to
clarify how intermediate nodes should deal with such extension
headers and with any that are defined in the future."
and that, I believe, is reflected in RFC8200.

The other new thing in RFC7045 was the IANA restructuring of
https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
That was not moved into RFC8200, and IANA still uses RFC7045 as the
primary reference. So I think it's appropriate that RFC8200 doesn't
obsolete RFC7045. You are correct that it is still relevant, but I'm
not sure there is any need for RFC7045bis.

We could have a long discussion about refactoring the IPv6 document
set in some way, but I'm not sure there's any value in that either.
Frequent updates of "Node Requirements" is another thing we could
discuss...

> I mean, other work (e.g. RFC6946 has been incorporated into 
> RFC8200, and currently their raison d'etre is mostly for the reader to 
> find additional information -- but from the pov of RFC8200 is not really 
> necessary to read RFC6946). OTOH, it would seem that RFC7045 still 
> applies to RFC8200 in the very same way it applies/applied to RFC2460?
> So in a way it should be in the bulleted list, but otoh it doesn't seem 
> to have been incorporated into RFC8200 -- while it still applies to it?
> 
> 
> Modulo RFC6980 (and RFC7045), it would seem that the first para (prose) 
> could also be arranged as a set of bullets, noting something along the 
> lines of "documents that discuss operational implications of EHs"?

Yes.

> And I guess we could also arrange the measurements stuff (last para) in 
> their own set of bullets?

A uniform structure would certainly be easier to read.

Regards
     Brian