Hi Brian,
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter
[mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:42 PM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Fernando Gont; 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
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.
If it messes up tunnels, then it's not ready.
This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the current
IPv6 standards.
If that problem is also mitigated by a measure that does not mess
up tunnels, then wouldn't that be worth considering before
finalizing this publication.
Thanks - Fred
fred(_dot_)l(_dot_)templin(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com
Brian