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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 03 December 2020 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A923A02BB; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:50:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m0iTEJyXj6Um; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 865653A02BC; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id r9so137234pjl.5; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:50:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CT9JqstVNlrEaV6nbroEhA/0gIDSVbkpYGZCV+Hd7qE=; b=iZFlriuClptjOiKWjZQZ/EE3Vvsfz9a0dFEx0rg8heefJTnJaWoosKZC76+8dH6xzF VIUEF5JGN5sGj6HsYsarDnD0jXD0g6N41TdbIHKGu5AHRRlApxpWsn2VcHswRO7l7bzR 97oMa+RO/AP2E0TWQHAt/hPjylxm1HBFk4gQB4nS7T+ljskFn9a4MeV3tjUB7T/KQgQp UGFZ2OlgoS4649ML2+4E8TUfortz5lapFArKQD6O9aj9NjkT/ILdkJRelqwXF/2FbTXA Bu5Lx6c/SnamPokVbLMnMVS/fi4v1QWjmzaomKfe0iDp6M/SC23rRaSTL2wG8GHTeXxM Oovg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CT9JqstVNlrEaV6nbroEhA/0gIDSVbkpYGZCV+Hd7qE=; b=n9g6V8ZwB0VeVVUUzRa+/WdaHFmxlsrZUnoOPExjGPvSmLMamRmBZ2QaykqzNkVx8Y HM0RubvivGznA3DlxZOxA3+SwxoG7GMsyaaz/NsiFnVFJTDBPRb9yytzWkY3HcrcQCTE KzKh9S1YgxAbI2uiKM7mkOvx35dd9+4kOR7iUnE1Yzvi+lYjbPCxVC83r/S1P+EHR4jl zdlxY3l0qyqiTOWmAy0M42N0K1VAo9mOg7UsKGHZbUSoFf7cDfQVdZ/EFG6NHkl7HVv8 lkF6MlF/UVJbCd9dHpx+MiROFq73nwXP/9E1jCeP9PsxaeHec+eimD1sV6WqHA4RbYcc a75g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mEvZgxhoAH1kI5R8uhOyuC9Th+HABBpAiteE3pXJ6wv27O5/U sMWCb1GpfLc5hrCWYah6A6odTGJ25XDeew==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJGna7Ux83E9Wt2YdODibG2J26Lmz0tXHd4r4LjFlcmHD8+OtNyqpdYp85vjRpqSDgvm8jLg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:128a:: with SMTP id fw10mr544422pjb.113.1606956618616; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:50:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c205sm229710pfc.160.2020.12.02.16.50.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:50:17 -0800 (PST)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, v6ops@ietf.org
Cc: fernando@gont.com.ar, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops.authors@ietf.org
References: <d97ca0fd-776a-1525-50d1-3a62fd7edf5f@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <0c121812-44cf-119e-fd09-bb138ff789de@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <d1814cfd-d603-9cc0-f6ae-d37feafb62b8@si6networks.com> <25389c41-2f2a-19a3-5106-f64a8d81cdd3@gmail.com> <0330da67-57e1-7d8c-282d-aeba379987d4@si6networks.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b6d139ff-1abe-1b34-3a1f-1509a183822d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:50:13 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0330da67-57e1-7d8c-282d-aeba379987d4@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/QXg00Lu_WJKWjk_PhQd5aq4vxLA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-01
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:50:21 -0000

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,
>