Hi Fernando, First let me say that I though Ole's summary was fair. One comment below: On 10/02/2017 10:30, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 02/09/2017 07:36 AM, otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Fernando, >> >> Pete asked me to summarize the objections to option 1 - banning header insertion explicitly. >> I responded with the set of objections I've heard for all options, as I couldn't see a straightforward way of only summarising for option 1. >> >> I don't understand your message. >> Do you disagree with the summary itself? Are there arguments missing? >> Or is your grief that the I have distilled the arguments wrongly or put them in a bad light? >> >> Or are you just rehashing your position on the issue? > > I think that some points are not as clear as they should be: > > 1) The current state of affairs with respect to IPv6 EH insertion is > that insertion is forbidden. It has always been clear to everyone. I don't think it has. In fact, that's the whole point: some people have *not* deduced that rule from the RFC2460/RFC1883 wording. Brian > > 2) However, some folks came up with proposals to insert EH, on the basis > that "RFC2460 does not explicitly ban EH insertion". If there's people > arguing that, we clearly need to make this clear in the spec. > > 3) There was a consensus call, yes. When the call was made on the > mailing-list, the vast majority of supporters of "let's keep the > ambiguity" were folks from the same company as "2)". I have no idea if > this changes (or not) "consensus"... but this is clearly an important > datapoint. > > 4) Given "1)" and "2)" above, it should be evident that the spec needs > to be crystal-clear on this topic. > > 5) Arguing in favor of keeping ambiguity in a spec that has generated > 600+ messages in the very group that standardizes the protocol pretty > much reads like "Let's publish a lousy spec!". And I think that would be > very bad. We're talking about something that is at the core of the > protocol, essentially "Is IPv6 an end-to-end protocol?". I would expect > rfc2460bis to answer such a very basic question, and I'm curious how we > could move a spec to (full) Standard without answering such a basic > question. > > > There's no grief at all. If anything, just a concern that some of these > items might not be clear enough, and, in particular that without the > datapoint in "3)", folks might get a misleading interpretation of the > discussions that happened in th wg. "3" could be read pretty much like > "all folks from the same company that has a proposal to insert EHs what > insertion of EHs to be allowed". > > Thanks, >