> On 15 Mar 2017, at 18:59, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 16/03/2017 07:14, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> >> On 3/15/2017 9:33 AM, Leddy, John wrote: >>> Does this mean that only middle boxes, not covered by the architecture could insert an extension header for use within the domain? >> Please see my recent post about Stefano's issue. IMO, any opaque >> (distributed) system that acts like a host can follow the host (node) >> requirements. >> >> The instant that system is not opaque or fails to act like a single >> host, it becomes noncompliant. > > That's the point. That's why the 6man WG shot down proposals to play > intra-domain tricks with the flow label a few years ago, and they > didn't even break PMTUD or IPsec/AH. > > In another form, the answer to John is that there are no protocol police, > so what consenting adults do inside their own networks simply isn't an > issue that an Internet-wide spec can or should address. And for sure, the > spec for IPvN for any value of N is an Internet-wide spec. > > If Stefano and colleagues describe how private domains can perform tricks > that MUST NOT be exported to the Internet, that is fine. Whether that > becomes a standards track document or an Independent Submission RFC is > another question. But IMHO it is completely orthogonal to the rough > consensus on 2460bis. Exactly. Tim