Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 03/17/2016 05:45 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> The goal of publishing this document is so that we don't have to
>> rehash the same discussion every time the topic of EHs come up.
> 
> If your goal was to avoid rehashing discussions about EHs then I
> think you would have been a lot more successful by not publishing
> this document.

"Avoid rehashing a discussion" != "not ever talking about something".

Every time we talked about EHs, you asked the same question: "why do you
need to obtain the layer-4 information, if you're supposed to just fwd
packets?"

This document answers that question, among other things.

You also noted that "all this is well known" (which then I don't follow
why you asked the question in the first place), and that this stuff is
covered elsewhere -- but even when it was asked a couple of times, you
never said *where* it is covered.



> There is no single common view on EHs that apply to all
> circumstances.

I haven't seen any operator saying that what is said in our document is
incorrect.

What are the "other" views that supposedly do not agree with the one
stated in our document?


I get the impression that discussions on EHs are unpopular, because
people don't like to admit when there's a problem. But being n
engineering group, I think we better admit problems and do our best to
come up with solutions, than pretend there's no problem at all.

--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492