ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

2013-10-11 17:42:56
Fred,

On 12/10/2013 08:56, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Brian,

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter 
[mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Fernando Gont
Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt>
(Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit on the length of the header chain,
I
must say I symphatize with that (for instance, check the last
individual
version of this I-D, and you'll find exactly that). But the wg didn't
want that in -- and I did raise the issue a few times. So what we
have
is what the 6man wg had consensus on.
I agree that this was the WG consensus after considerable discussion,
which included Fred, so I'm not sure why we're discussing it again
during IETF LC.

Technical matters should be discussed as they come to light; not
dismissed because of some real or perceived deadline. That was what
got us the 1280 MTU in the first place. Quoting from Steve Deering:

  " We would like to get this issue settled as
    soon as possible, since this is the only thing holding up the publication
    of the updated Proposed Standard IPv6 spec (the version we expect to 
advance
    to Draft Standard), so let's see if we can come to a decision before the 
ID
    deadline at the end of next week (hoping there isn't any conflict between
    "thoughtful analysis" and "let's decide quickly" :-)."

So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of "thoughtful
analysis" so much as the fact that **they were rushing to get a spec out
the door**. So now, 16 years later, we get to put it back on the 6man
charter milestone list.

We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that it's
relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain
is ready. This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the current
IPv6 standards.

    Brian

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>