Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-04.txt

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 29 July 2020 07:59 UTC

To: Tim Chown <tjc.ietf@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
References: <159574132870.611.12077598721404194383@ietfa.amsl.com> <cc504d98-93ad-d14d-3362-e59b323d4b90@gmail.com> <5f0f7715-ff53-e5b2-6803-df1aac573060@gont.com.ar> <53a8e94d-dfc3-23f9-2dac-b70eb4f203a8@gmail.com> <B9888B6A-B81C-4F9B-A195-420C9236E2A9@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <e743058d-c4c1-aeac-e81e-87baea4e38e0@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:58:59 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B9888B6A-B81C-4F9B-A195-420C9236E2A9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/WMODbzsb9BUldduE2oyrWjY-9Zo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-04.txt
Precedence: list

Hi, Tim,

On 28/7/20 11:32, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> On 27 Jul 2020, at 21:51, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27-Jul-20 18:49, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>
>>> BTW... it seems that RFC7045 has not really been incorporated into
>>> RFC8200?
>>
>> Well, yes and no. Firstly the point about HbH header processing
>> being essentially optional was adopted.  Similarly, RFC7045 says
>> "This document updates RFC 2460 to
>> clarify how intermediate nodes should deal with such extension
>> headers and with any that are defined in the future."
>> and that, I believe, is reflected in RFC8200.
> 
> It may be worth pointing out that RFC 7045 was included in the IPv6 Node Requirements

Maybe we can tweak the text to say something along the lines of:
"  A number of recent RFCs have discussed issues related to IPv6
    extension headers, specifying updates to a previous revision of the
    IPv6 standard ([RFC2460]), most of which have now been incorporated
    into the current IPv6 core standard ([RFC8200]) or the IPv6 Node
    Requirements [RFC8504]).  Namely,"
.
.

?


> - bis work and thus into RFC 8504, with the “nodes SHOULD forward packets regardless of EHs present” text repeated there.
> 
> EH-related requirements in RFC 8504 are explicitly covered in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8504#section-5.2.

By the way, our working copy says:

"[RFC8504] specifies processing rules for packets with extension 
headers, and also allows hosts to enforce limits on the number of 
options included in IPv6 EHs."

Maybe we should say s/specifies/clarifies/ ?

FWIW, I don't mind noting “nodes SHOULD forward packets regardless of 
EHs present”, but in a way wouldn't that misrepresent both RFC8504 and 
RFC7045 a bit, which essentially elaborate on the caveats for the SHOULD 
(and hence are way more than to eartg that RFC8200).

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs… Fernando Gont
Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs… Tim Chown
Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs… Fernando Gont
Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs… Tim Chown
Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs… Brian E Carpenter