----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 8:51 AM
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In Section 4 ("IPv6 Extension Headers") the draft says:
>
>> With one exception, extension headers are not processed by any node
>> along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node
(or
>> each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in
the
>> Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.
>
> (FYI, the exception is the hop-by-hop extension header.)
>
> I do not dispute that this sentence reached WG consensus. However, I
want
> to ask if it has IETF consensus. In my opinion, this sentence should
read
>
> With one exception, extension headers are not processed, inserted,
> deleted or modified by any node along a packet's delivery path,
until
> the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the
case
> of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the
IPv6
> header.
>
> I believe this was always the intended meaning of the word "processed"
> from the earliest design phase of IPv6, but some people have read this
> text as allowing insertion, deletion or modification of headers. IMHO
> it needs to be clarified.
are we re-spinning the debate on a WG-agreed text ?
<tp>
Yes, and I am sure that that is exactly what is intended.
Some, many perhaps, may not like it but it is the consensus of the IETF
that is sought and that trumps anything that a WG may say or do. Not
long ago, an I-D with good WG support, more so than this one, got thrown
out by the IETF Last Call and has sunk; the traces are there but it will
never make RFC.
I also expected the challenge, on another of this set, as to whether
IPv6 is ready for Standard status; the WG discussions, which I have
tracked, convince me that it is not.
Tom Petch
s.
> Regards
> Brian Carpenter
>