On 18/02/2017 07:00, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Ole
>
> Are you saying:
>
> A correct implementation of RFC2460 MUST NOT insert an EH at any point
> along the path other than at the packet source.
>
> Or
>
> A correct implementation of RFC2460 MAY insert an EH at any point along
> the path.
Ole doesn't, apparently, want to say either of those things.
I want to say the first *as part of the promotion to Internet Standard*
because it was the clear and documented intent of the authors and WG
of RFC 1883, which became RFC 2460. (Documented in the ancient email I dug
out a while back.) And it has been assumed by subsequent work such
as PMTUD and IPsec/AH.
If we want to *change* it, that's a separate discussion from promoting
the current standard. We can do it afterwards.
(And in answer to some other comments, I'll note that RFC 791 does not
forbid NAT, but I bet the authors would have done so if they'd thought
of it. When did forbidding something in an RFC ever prevent people from
implementing it in a limited domain?)
Brian