Hi Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:42 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Fernando Gont; 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 > > 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. If it messes up tunnels, then it's not ready. > This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the current > IPv6 standards. If that problem is also mitigated by a measure that does not mess up tunnels, then wouldn't that be worth considering before finalizing this publication. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@xxxxxxxxxx > Brian