Joel, > Ole, it is true that we write in English, and there is always room for > "interpretation", sometimes reasoanble room, sometimes not. > > But in this case we have a demonstrated difference in how people > understand the existing text. When we have such a demonstrated > difference, we have an obligation to address it. This particular issue has caused no interoperability issue, and only a single question to the working group 20 years ago. The current debate has been caused by a set of new proposals, independently of 2460, where the authors have in a creative reading of the current text figured out that they can shoe-horn header insertion in without actually violating the specification. Now, if clarifying the text was done, then I presume these proposals would just adapt to update 2460bis instead. The real battle would in any case have to be over those documents, not this one. Now for the snarkiness; an issue that has created real problems is both IETF specifications (although experimental) and implementations of address rewriting by intermediate boxes. And there isn't a explicit ban on address rewriting in 2460. Should we add that? Would it help? > PS: The ability to do ECMP is why I helped with and supported the effort to get the flow label use for ECMP entropy documented. That would ameliorate a number of problems. I do not expect this revision of 2460 to fix that, particularly since there seems to be little adoption. I try not to get distracted looking for perfection. Yes, and that's greatly appreciated! Best regards, Ole
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP