On 31/03/2017 10:13, Robert Raszuk wrote: > What's wrong or what is missing in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-05 > > ? Once we get 2460bis out of the door, we should seriously tackle that question. Honestly it's going to be easier then. I perhaps disagree with Ole whether we need an Updates: 2460bis but that depends on the details. Brian > > On Mar 30, 2017 16:05, <otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Robert, >> >>> Correct me if I am missing someting but the entire debate is not about >> describing or not header insertion. >>> >>> I am under assumption that originating hosts still can legally insert it. >>> >>> It is all about to modify EH in flight - right ? Moreover concerns >> raised are about side effects of it like MTU .. not lack of instructions on >> how to insert, modify or remove EH elements. >>> >>> So what exactly are you expecting WG to deliver as next step if 2460bis >> goes fwd ? Is detecting the max MTU on end to end path even in 6man's >> charter ? >> >> You can write a new protocol specification independently of 2460bis that >> does whatever it has to do, and then we can argue over that document on its >> own merits. >> >> Cheers, >> Ole >> >