On 02/15/2017 07:18 AM, otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>>> 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, >> >> May I ask what's the data that support this statement? > > From the shepherd's writeup: > IPv6 is implemented on most platforms (hosts, routers, servers, etc.), > including proprietary and open source. A list of products that have > received the IPV6 Ready logo can be found at: > > https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4 This has nothing to do wth the interoperability problems that may be caused by a middlebox that inserts EHs. >> You certainly have no way of knowing this, or whether interoperability >> issues may arise in the future. > > Yes, we do know if our protocols have interoperability issues. > Have you implemented RFC2460? I have. So have many others on this list. > In the context of implementing 2460 there just is no ambiguity and this issue will never arise. Huh? Yes, if you connect two IPv6 devices, without a middle-box inserting EHs in the middle, you will not experience the associated possible problems. What's the news here? > What you are talking about is something else. You are talking about the hypothetical "What if someone standardised something new in the future?" :-) C'mon, Ole. Take a look at the initial versions of the SR I-D -- and, EH insertion has reportedly been deployed as a result of the implementation of such initial versions of the I-D. You can clarify that EH insertion is banned, and move rfc2460bis to full stanard (since that's what's supposed to be mature) You can delay rfc2460->std, and work to update rfc2460. Now, moving rfc2460 to full std knowingly leaving a hole there such that after rfc2460 is std you completely change the architecture (e2e vs !e2e) with EH insertion doesn't seem a serious thing to do, IMO. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492