Re: [v6ops] Question about "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers"

Fred Baker <> Fri, 31 July 2020 05:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6733A0DDF for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MB2TJJmS-b7k for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE29E3A0D65 for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c6so6286514pje.1 for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=cEfP621HQ1gy2PKepEiuAI0tcXBebjRtQtHyuwioOz8=; b=JnEb8p5tAHGuJUlFKqe4Dc2O2g765AUzO+6cAzuNeQIM3gFPVdevonUOTlHqQlUGGs 9R4dL0+1NzoKKeZMFVqVRQMk/gvAuKMWsQc9lb8D5O6dMu/KsVSazHrC53EABNXJvbKc clGliTOsxhdQ2uK8m1haJfbUdEM3YR1tBIUxM4hAYQja2TPIsY032x0wvcvRKiB3bEZx RHSoWig1KWL+cbSMAeoVU2lbqCBLzV9l4SEKYF6chA1OMIewF25O7WCRDWcVFfWKs+Ca BbrvcOubXZ1JqVL5jP4O8uXm3wK04/FV2Sun036Px+fKj3RAAm4E+nHKLgOdzdz9CRYE X5GQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=cEfP621HQ1gy2PKepEiuAI0tcXBebjRtQtHyuwioOz8=; b=aXvqAR1pXf1wYiMim4Uyk/hlOmQ6sbMfPQXzXsBUwwV1KaAeROl1HJslG8BvbLvci9 DlJ7apbtXrfeeQVVPMFhqIwuWBSPPbCVVZE/9PpHubrWGuACYX/20XSsC6sqWcFUMYbX M8TmcKHF4vMgodBN61xsdYVgBADChvCcsmsmnHbmmePv5OHH3y5nNZ8N8x2ACyxx31wN hBZjD3RTggWJuesg1gjs+/gJSXcLkZnzzyzu8Lyo9sSVPXixIU4FdvRl57ArnCd6Ps91 InAFPdnuiL5fizWIYTOiZxMvrb84c02Dgqy2KH0N7nLPFKqxEdw5SPHgaVWp036y6Qat +hBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533+M1mL4ENJpaEagLMcGHP6vHFYtXP9oOGpa1Rj3n3hYaof8WLE pB6uJ4snfBJzgas2oiEBLRaTDd/UJiU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwO7phG8SLsKo6ZaO+4y9efHiCZPQgn0E0qnnEjpHUYgQUmf9cLwZ6zyr5Sw9V/S6Xty3lZOg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6bc5:: with SMTP id m5mr2317696plt.150.1596172872129; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5800:652::199f? ([2600:8802:5800:652::199f]) by with ESMTPSA id y4sm8173852pff.44.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:21:10 -0700
References: <>
To: IPv6 Operations <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Question about "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:21:15 -0000

I see a few emails supporting adoption, and none saying "no" or "abstain". Taking the ground rule in a hum that it is imprecise (otherwise, this might be mistaken for a vote), I take that as support, but there is not a groundswell of opinion presented. While adoption as a working group draft says that we want to collectively consider this, adoption doesn't imply that we are done, and comments in some of the emails suggested specifically that the draft continues to need work.

Jordi, et al, please upload a version named draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-00.txt. In doing so, please tell the tool that it replaces draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops.

I have asked several people for reviews of the uploaded draft when it is available, and I would encourage discussion.

> On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:55 PM, Fred Baker <> wrote:
> It looks like Fernando (et al) revised this and posted draft -04 on Saturday, and there has been a flurry of discussion. I haven't been through the document or the entire thread yet, but I do observe that a number of people have comments, and several people have expressed interest in the document.
> Let me ask the obvious question: you we want to adopt this as a working group draft? I won't ask you to hum; whether you wish to say "yes", "no", or "abstain", please reply to this email *privately* (which is to say, to v6ops-chairs) with that word prepended on the subject line. I'll give us 48 hours, which is to say that I will evaluate and state the result Thursday evening Pacific time.
> Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers%22
>  "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers", Fernando Gont, Nick Hilliard, Gert Doering, Warren Kumari, Geoff Huston, 2020-07-25,