Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] Call for WG adoption - Recommendations on Filtering of IPv6 Packets Containing IPv6 Extension Headers

["C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 1:47 PM, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Joe Touch wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2014 12:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Exactly. I believe this draft, and the options draft, are *exactly* what
> >>> the IETF should do (and why we have an E in our name instead of an S;
> >>> we are not the Internet Standards Task Force). If our standards are
> >>> unrealistic, we should be the ones to do something about it...
> >>
> >> If it's that our standards are unrealistic, it would be useful to
> >> address this as changes to the standards.
> > 
> > That's what RFC 7045 does; it has "Updates: 2460, 2780" on its front 
> > page.  Similarly, draft-gont-6man-ipv6-opt-transmit (the options 
> > draft referred to above) has "Updates: 2460 (if approved)" in its 
> > front page.
> 
> Right, but it's not what either this doc
> (draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering) or
> draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world does.
> 
> I've raised this issue before.

If I correctly understand the intent, draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering 
is not supposed to make any recommendations that contravene RFC 2460 
as updated by RFC 7045 and draft-gont-6man-ipv6-opt-transmit.  If 
you see something specific where it does so please point it out.  I 
didn't find anything like that when I reviewed the document.

//cmh