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

Nick Hilliard <> Wed, 07 April 2021 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C003A1BDB; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ggMUTGN3ncLd; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 07:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF2A53A1BD8; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crumpet.local ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 137Ews1p017406 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 15:58:54 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>
Cc: Tom Herbert <>, Fernando Gont <>, Gorry Fairhurst <>, "" <>, IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Nick Hilliard <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 15:58:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.47
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05
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: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:59:11 -0000

Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote on 07/04/2021 15:22:
> I guess that the authors could consider adding a sentence that it
> also doesn't provide any recommendation on how end hosts make use of
> extension headers, but that might be a bit incongruous in the sense
> that the document doesn't appear to talk about end host behaviour at
> all ...
well, this is kinda the concern that we as authors have.  The document 
is completely clear that it's descriptive, and not prescriptive, and 
there is an entire disclaimer section which points this out.  We get 
Tom's interest in having a document that tells forwarding stack software 
authors what to aim towards, but this isn't that document and we've got 
well-defined reasons for not wanting to move in that direction.

If Tom or others find that the idea of a descriptive-only document 
doesn't match what they would want, well ok, I guess that's 
understandable from the point of view of a software author - but 
consensus isn't unanimity either.  As you suggest, adding an extra 
sentence as a further disclaimer seems incongruous and I'm not sure that 
it would turn the document into a better version of itself.