IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 22 February 2021 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.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 899A43A2139; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:44:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 8cYFxpKIx1ZM; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:44:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 229A63A2159; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:44:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 11MMii3p042908 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Feb 2021 22:44:45 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8] claimed to be crumpet.local
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsv-art@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops.all@ietf.org, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <161366727749.10107.14514005068158901089@ietfa.amsl.com> <42668fb5-a355-e656-7d99-c40b3d33fb92@si6networks.com> <0e377231-c319-2157-30a0-759e2f96a692@gmail.com> <5f464f17-85ed-f105-35f9-02f35d04aed2@si6networks.com> <CALx6S364zGbq_HZNNVEaJHnHccuk4Zau2DXhmaVYbwnYQc-5bw@mail.gmail.com> <1847e8e3-543f-5deb-dd14-f7c7fa3677db@si6networks.com> <CALx6S34TPppMRJrOvyJ05LLeRvv+S51pQHJnzZDKk-qOdsF0AA@mail.gmail.com> <e41f3484-f816-e185-2d99-94323c8da732@si6networks.com> <CALx6S34qSxGijVcs229bAL5gMhMvMNYUXm3yEmrg6wxUiUAiaA@mail.gmail.com> <7758bf30-b39e-8fb0-cab8-40d60aa14d0b@foobar.org> <CALx6S35UOsdSf=usxpWsXW57M+xRe4FB06dgUy-Vh8Bo+7U_1g@mail.gmail.com> <f5872caf-db3f-3041-e615-18a76f4fa922@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36vPEFiYgsCcBw4N06zYZU6c8=cfG7XK0PFm-nwjMuhwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <6fda0f29-443e-f565-ba4e-f6db6a9218e7@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 22:44:43 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.46
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36vPEFiYgsCcBw4N06zYZU6c8=cfG7XK0PFm-nwjMuhwg@mail.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/kvzu5hzUTF2pCPUR6MYy7p2Pzv4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 22:45:03 -0000

Tom,

Tom Herbert wrote on 22/02/2021 19:17:
> If you recall, I specifically asked for the _normative_ requirements
> about what a host must expose to the network beyond just the IP
> headers. If the normative requirements are such that that hosts MUST
> expose transport ports (assuming consensus is achieved for that), then
> it follows that we'll need the normative requirements for how deep in
> the packet those transport headers can be.

this has been addressed already: the draft does not set out to assess or 
specify normative requirements for transport headers.  There doesn't 
seem to anything left to address on this issue.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email