On 23/1/21 10:04, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Fernando Gont wrote:
I'd have agreed with you. BUt since
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has been approved by the
IESG, you probably cannot make such assertion anymore.
One draft that doesn’t update or obsolete numerous others does not
undermine 40 yrs of E2E.
Esp. when (AFAICT) that doc series never mentions how transport
protocols are supposed to deal with indeterminate endpoint addresses
in their pseudo headers or the impact to security protocols at the
transport (not transport content) layer.
One *internet-draft* certainly doesn't undermine E2E. However, I guess
that an *RFC* published as a "Proposed Standard" probably does
(undermine) E2E? -- (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has
been approved by the IESG).
Wrong.
That the draft state "any complex user-defined behavior" means
it is subject to incompleteness theorem applicable to any
system complex enough to be able to handle natural numbers, which
means its behavior can not be fully reversed by external systems
to restore the E2E transparency even though its behavior is
formally fully described, which means the E2E principle can
not be kept regardless of whatever random things IESG might
have stated.
The problem here is not how things were specified, but rather *what* was
specified.
PPS
E2E transparency can be fully restored by end systems, even if it
is disturbed by intermediate systems, if, and only if, the end
systems not merely have formal description of the intermediate
systems but can actively and properly interact with the intermediate
systems to control actively their internal activities.
In this case, they can't.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
