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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 03 December 2020 00:38 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 7E5443A045E; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:38:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 cMUWrpLAkOof; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0A9A3A0115; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:9c91:27c0:253d:5241] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:9c91:27c0:253d:5241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B64E283C27; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 00:38:03 +0000 (UTC)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <0330da67-57e1-7d8c-282d-aeba379987d4@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 21:19:36 -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: <25389c41-2f2a-19a3-5106-f64a8d81cdd3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ftFnCOXlNk5jXazi_ymqX6nzrSc>
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 00:38:22 -0000

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?

FWIW, I don't mind applying the change Gorry suggested, as long as the 
text is still correct/precise.

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