Re: [v6ops] IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 10/5/2014 6:01 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2014, at 19:53, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
...
>> Ultimately, we need an Internet whose behavior is coherent, not based on
>> potentially interfering communities perceived as being orthogonal.
> 
> Perhaps better to say communities with different perspectives. But your choice language makes a point.
> 
> RFC7045 is good in my view, but is not yet where we are at. 

Which raises an additional point. The ink on that is barely dry. What
changed that warrants looking at this again so soon? BOTH docs ought to
address that (this doc mentions that RFC only in passing in the intro,

...
> But the point remains, documenting the observations/problem
> independently allows discussion in those other communities - vendors,
> operators and protocol designers - without trying to pre-empt that in a
> single document. I’m not saying there’s a right or a wrong way, but I
> think it’s better to be able to take stock from a clean problem
> statement/set of observations, than try to do everything in one go.

That ship sailed with RFC7045.

Right now, we're not talking about a hypothetical sequence of docs.
We're talking about operational recommendations that have already been
offered as a WG doc in OPSEC a few weeks ago this AND now this doc in V6OPS.

> It’s a shame the IETF91 BoF cutoff just went by - a non WG-forming
> BoF might have been a good way to tease these issues out.

The only people who really need to be at that meeting right now are the
ADs and chairs of OPSEC and V6OPS.

Although I appreciate that everyone thinks that "this can be
coordinated", we're seeing ample evidence to the contrary. It's useful
to note here that NEITHER DOC REFERENCES THE OTHER, despite being
written by the same author (which begs the question of "end run").

If this is left to the WGs, then the WGs need to decide if they can
manage each of these documents in the isolation the context that already
has been allowed to exist and is already promoted by the author - or if
that can *only* happen in a single doc.

Joe