Hello Al,
After looking at https://tools..ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05 I have only one lingering comment.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 3:42 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I discussed this at length with co-authors, and arrived ata tighter wording. We simply delete the PDM citation in the 2nd sentence,
and then we refer to the chartered work on in-situ OAM only:
The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into
focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use
cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM [ref] in
enterprise environments can benefit from
inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension
headers in hosts along the measurement path.
I see that the text in -05 is substantially what is written above. In my opinion. it is not as up-to-date as it should be with respect to decisions taken subsequent to the publication of RFC 6564 and RFC 7045, nor does it take a suitably neutral tone as it appears to endorse header insertion (a very controversial proposition). May I suggest in its place something along the following lines:
Currently, the IPv6 base specification [RC8200] does not allowinsertion or deletion of extension headers by intermediate nodes,and except for Hop-by-Hop Options, does not allow modification.However, work in progress such as in-situ OAM in enterprise environments [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] may result in extensions to [RFC8200] that
allow inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension headers in nodes along the measurement path.
All of my other comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
Thanks and regards,
Mike Heard
