Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops

otroan@employees.org Tue, 29 March 2016 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 CE2B412E0F2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 4_z6bQ2xtWof for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (cowbell.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:a000:17::142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DA6B12E099 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CE4D78A0; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=GhGa8cijAzbdTgPAk0UDmTlYmvU=; b= q+R6f3X1SomKyTZvC0Uq+wRonuBQ2/qFkviYShKwDTU+dox98eGkQXX3BxhGp/A8 Gvavd3cEj/AjJTRKYrMliizMzKrDAQUwdBUHXX0xJv0UJWxg9llx/sm3M4aMTAN/ q/99gRj2/RKQTuAMzbDccjPWMp0IPwnFzvIMj7aDO28=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=VSLjeQCHfItBj68AN6yDltc1Aq vyv3cS0Ceuf+/cUPpvuT+6e8XfFGTpm3mRvf+c+ieROeG3PMEjSlaF+kjpwgO1rC gJ/r+nzoBfShhLzSMBUG+F48ovUESuprcN0cwCGlbz+Ss3K22hXWUIL3K5Mm+bIz HDKRnRaYmN0Zp6V/0=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [195.159.234.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B879DD789D; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4358F13BE3AF; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:13:18 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_548CDA8E-7139-4E32-9F1E-9A83293D7215"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <56FAA1EA.80206@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:13:17 +0200
Message-Id: <4B4BD1F4-6381-400D-A82E-524DDAD5170B@employees.org>
References: <CAHw9_iLbqEvsw0x4dDcA3Zy3SXKUROcQuy5nSynsL9Xi+xrZLg@mail.gmail.com> <566C93D0-62FF-4700-BC05-7F9AF12AF1BD@employees.org> <56E892B8.9030902@foobar.org> <394925FE-FAB1-4FFC-B1CF-4F64CC58F613@employees.org> <56E94275.20700@foobar.org> <3AE1DE20-D735-4262-A3FB-7C01F30BAFA2@employees.org> <56E96F74.7000206@foobar.org> <CALx6S37zP4UvCtBJsvnPN6OmDB0OQDMfRrJNy1XF0t4COStUjQ@mail.gmail.com> <56E98086.5040209@foobar.org> <EE17974D-EDA4-4732-B29E-B2B3BC36DB86@employees.org> <20160328183844.GR62900@Space.Net> <56F9A22B.2030301@isi.edu> <5E619124-0A60-45BB-86AA-7F7D5CC614AD@cisco.com> <56F9AE53.8060903@gmail.com> <56F9BEA3.9050409@isi.edu> <4542AA33-F4FA-4F52-B5FE-9ABF2627CD5E@cisco.com> <56F9C856.2030403@gmail.com> <56F9C915.9070408@isi.edu> <E2C0BF9F-806C-4ACC-86CE-1B678628E687@employees.org> <56FAA1EA.80206@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hpplJff5LCxqYrhIpZez2dQaObs>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:45:01 -0000

Joe,

>>>> Yes. It's a bug in RFC2460 that this ambiguity arises.
>>> 
>>> I took it as a feature. IMO, the idea of a chain enables this feature,
>>> and I don't think it should be so quickly dismissed as potentially useful.
>>> 
>>> I appreciate that not everyone agrees, though.
>> 
>> It does break PMTUD though.
> 
> Only increasing the length would break PMTUD, but that's already
> deprecated in favor of PLMTUD - which would still work.

in 6man we're in the process of moving RFC1981 to Internet Standard.
in your view, what should we do with this document?

Best regards,
Ole