> On 30 Mar 2017, at 22:50, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Agreed (on both points). And I think you’ll find many who want 2460bis to ship as proposed by our AD will also be very willing to help work through the issues. Tim > 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 >>> >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@xxxxxxxx > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >