At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:37:45 +1300, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I'd also like to see if it has IETF consensus. I've never understood why we can't correct text when it has been misunderstood and while (almost?) everyone agrees it's really misunderstanding according to the intent of the author of the text. I stated it in a bit more detail at the time of WGLC: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg25489.html Brian hinted that the wg probably just got stuck about this discussion and realistically we can only discuss it in the IETF last call: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg25490.html My understanding is that that's why we're now having this thread and I fully support and appreciate it. I guess this also answers the question of whether we're re-spinning it here. In fact, in my understanding that's exactly the point of having both WG and IETF last calls. As for the actual text, I support the suggested text by Brian. I would probably propose something slightly different myself, but I'm fine as long as the clarity issue is resolved/improved. -- JINMEI, Tatuya