Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - implications from new development for EHs

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 29 July 2020 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 E752A3A0EC6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 Y-EgMuz_1nf9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D49B43A0EC5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ciCMpvvhWvf8xn+5s+EkfgX1gaxb8QJR69Ve3ial3Ic=; b=owNBa8F+twEttTV8O2VUVy9AI dBPi8WsoJRod1tCcrlotqYobFQDsE8LJO8z+1Edfdujjs2GEBhcqqYUUQRiBBk1ug1kZKmuEgs8e+ oRO4t9Ysm73Oda6zUQdApkrwA1maKYyOFwKcS22OoUU5XEpJqm8M18HOOc38jrdyo7JcNHutZpjPS xwfTp3ld1hiVVFiKIVFBFUhEE4Ccy9XD1Lo3P7Irqjh1PnuX0aaKWbnZqf35TLAaC6zeI7agHQreg zfTnuuqN3lafst1OX/N2OAoQHSATouVsooljwClPbypaAgYiApWuuSNb7ujUSCqJ6XiW4KcI+R137 UUeoxy5sA==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:56811 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1k0sVP-0006Uc-9c; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:16:55 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <A197EF3A-1E1E-40F1-BB50-68469E3C8E63@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:16:47 -0700
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <44481FC7-6E3F-4D5A-A5A9-A338C1836EA1@strayalpha.com>
References: <d8d59ce07f7f4031a545ff6e24fdbb88@huawei.com> <20200729084351.GG2485@Space.Net> <32BAEAEA-7352-4BAE-ADA8-FDA2395D5732@employees.org> <a6ed89a8-c12e-b8d2-c720-5cc02e127a68@si6networks.com> <FCBD1043-A0B2-435A-9AB9-0FCE3566C769@employees.org> <4573db3f-ac8d-3103-1979-e803ae40f117@si6networks.com> <DEB1318E-0E5B-4093-A691-8E1FD35B9F50@strayalpha.com> <A197EF3A-1E1E-40F1-BB50-68469E3C8E63@delong.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Xy0RsKy5odfGbudmk-VsX7FkI4g>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - implications from new development for EHs
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: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 20:17:01 -0000


> On Jul 29, 2020, at 9:32 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> 
> ...Let’s have this document represent the current situation and then call out which parts of that situation are considered to be bugs/errors
> and which parts we believe represent “opportunities” for improvements in the standards.

Agreed.

>> If we are merely documenting what happens to be implemented, we cease to be a standards body and become merely reporters.
> 
> If we avoid any introspection or consideration of operational reality, the cease to be a relevant standards body and become an ivory tower.\

That’s why I said “merely”. Doing both and appreciating the balance is fine - the point is that “what is implemented/able TODAY” is NOT the only consideration.

Joe