On 27/2/20 21:05, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Fernando,
[Cc trimmed to ietf@ and Area Director]
[....]>> * 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.
Seriously?
* On the procedural area:
+ Where/how should IETF WGs seek for architecture-related advice?
I suggest sending an email to the IAB.
I did, one or too months ago. Also cc'ed the architecture-dicuss list.
+ 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.
Would change the consensus from what to what?
Appendix B of RFC8200 clearly says:
o Clarified that extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop
Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any
node along a packet's delivery path.
Is the errata I filed anything different from such intent?
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
