Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-01

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

On 03-Dec-20 13:19, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 2/12/20 20:04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 03-Dec-20 06:52, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>> Hello, Gorry,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your feedback! -- We really appreciate it!
>>>
>>> In-line...
>>>
>>> On 1/12/20 13:30, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> * I have some concerns that some of the choices of words could
>>>> (unintentionally) be taken as endorsing a best practice, which I don't
>>>> think the IETF would generally promote. This is more about ensuring
>>>> specific parts can not be quoted out of context. I did a careful read
>>>> and hope I identified most of these and propose something that might be
>>>> helpful (please see attached PDF - RTF is identical). I think it would
>>>> be good to clarify in a few places this is the RFC8200 spec, since I
>>>> have heard there could be new work to update that.
>>>
>>> I don't mind doing that. However, isn't it implicit in all RFCs that
>>> they are referring to the current specifications (unless otherwise noted)?
>>>
>>> i.e., regardless of whether there is ongoing work, and whether one is
>>> aware about it, a spec refers to the IETF status at the time the spec is
>>> published (*).
>>>
>>> (*) Well, modulo RFC Ed processing times.
>>>
>>>
>>> In any case, IIRC, RFC8200 is the current state of affairs when it comes
>>> to EH processing, so I guess explicitly referencing RFC8200 wouldn't
>>> hurt.  -- I'm CC'ing Brian, who may correct me if my "of the top o my
>>> head" assessment is not correct :-)
>>
>> Yes, although 8200 does give a polite nod to 7045 and does *not*
>> obsolete it.
> 
> So, my question is: would it be correct to say "Extension Headers as 
> specified in RFC8200"? -- or would that be imprecise because it fails to 
> note that EHs are partially specified in RFC7045?

Maybe you should ask the authors of 8200 why they didn't obsolete 7045?

It's my belief that 8200 simply codifies in slightly different words
what 7045 says, as far as normative requirements go, but the informative
text in 7045 remains valid, and is therefore not obsoleted.

   Brian

> 
> FWIW, I don't mind applying the change Gorry suggested, as long as the 
> text is still correct/precise.
> 
> Thanks,
>