On 03/02/2017 21:51, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
>
>> 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 ?
Yes. That's what an IETF Last Call is about.
Brian