Hi Fernando,
[Cc trimmed to ietf@ and Area Director]
At 01:42 PM 27-02-2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
I've raised the topic to our AD (Suresh), to the IAB, and on the
arch-d list before, but so far haven't been lucky or seen anything
meaningful happen in this area.
I have also submitted an errata to make RFC8200 even more clear on
the topic, but it remains unprocessed.
So my questions are:
* On the technical area:
+ Is IPv6 an End To End protocol? Or is the IETF's stance that
routers are free to mangle with the packet structure as they please?
The IETF's stance is usually documented in RFCs. Routers are free to
mangle with packet structure. However, that does not mean that the
packet will reach its destination.
+ Was IPv6 designed that way? And if it wasn't, when/how was the
architecture changed?
The design is dated 1995. The latest specification is dated
2017. I assume that the issue is about Section 4 of that specification.
* On the procedural area:
+ Where/how should IETF WGs seek for architecture-related advice?
I suggest sending an email to the IAB.
+ What do do in situations like the above? Wait and see how things
evolve, and upon any formal decisions, just submit formal Appeals
if deemed necessary? (and after way too much energy consumed from
everyone)
I would have expected that as soon as these issues were raised,
the offending text would be removed rightaway. But that wasn't
the case. And when the changes did happen, it wasn't without
an extraordinary waste of time and energy from all of us.
For instance, any work on IPv6 header insertion/deletion wouldn't
seem to fit within the charters of the 6man or spring wgs.
FWIW, this is not the first instance of issues surrounding the same
topic. It goes back to the rfc2460bis effort, when a similar set of
folks (too many from one big vendor) got to have 6man ship
what became RFC8200 with a noted "ambiguity", just to be able
to have some playground for EH insertion/deletion. And we only got
to improve on that during IETF LC:
(see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Kp76SONpyqWneNgvtc8sh-fGAu0/)
Thoughts or advice on the technical and/or procedural aspects will
be appreciated.
I read the mailing list discussions several months ago to understand
the SRH controversy. In my opinion, the erratum, if approved, would
change the consensus at the time of publication of the specification.
The process allows you, or any other participant, to file an
appeal. My advice would be to discuss the matter with the Working
Group Chairs first.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
