Fred, On 12/10/2013 08:56, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Brian, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM >> To: Fernando Gont >> Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> >> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard >> >> On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote: >> ... >>> P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit on the length of the header chain, >> I >>> must say I symphatize with that (for instance, check the last >> individual >>> version of this I-D, and you'll find exactly that). But the wg didn't >>> want that in -- and I did raise the issue a few times. So what we >> have >>> is what the 6man wg had consensus on. >> I agree that this was the WG consensus after considerable discussion, >> which included Fred, so I'm not sure why we're discussing it again >> during IETF LC. > > Technical matters should be discussed as they come to light; not > dismissed because of some real or perceived deadline. That was what > got us the 1280 MTU in the first place. Quoting from Steve Deering: > > " We would like to get this issue settled as > soon as possible, since this is the only thing holding up the publication > of the updated Proposed Standard IPv6 spec (the version we expect to advance > to Draft Standard), so let's see if we can come to a decision before the ID > deadline at the end of next week (hoping there isn't any conflict between > "thoughtful analysis" and "let's decide quickly" :-)." > > So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of "thoughtful > analysis" so much as the fact that **they were rushing to get a spec out > the door**. So now, 16 years later, we get to put it back on the 6man > charter milestone list. We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that it's relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain is ready. This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the current IPv6 standards. Brian