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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 2/12/20 21:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

Ok. Then it would be safe to reference RFC8200 as *the* specification 
for EHs. I'm CC'ing Bob since he might correct me in case I'm missing 
something.

Thanks!

Regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492