On 28/2/20 00:20, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Fernando,
At 04:26 PM 27-02-2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
Seriously?
Yes. It is up to the vendor to assess whether it is sound engineering
or a financially-viable decision.
I did, one or too months ago. Also cc'ed the architecture-dicuss list.
One of the persons discussing on the thread is an IAB member.
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?
The consensus is on the text in the first part (Section 4) at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5933 ; The recommendation is to
replace the original two paragraphs with four paragraphs. If the above
is what appendix B states, the clarification (re. erratum) is not needed.
Yeah, of course erratas change text.There wouldn't be erratas if they
were no-ops. The point is that they don't change the spirit/intent of
the text.
Again: what do you think is the existing behavior, and how different
that is from that described in the proposed errata?
For what it is worth, there was an email which is allegedly from an Area
Director. One of the points in that email is about "a misuse of the
Errata process".
That would be the case if the proposed fix was changing the intent of
the spec. But it isn't.
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
