ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

2017-02-03 12:49:27
At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:37:45 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

   With one exception, extension headers are not processed by any node
   along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or
   each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the
   Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.

(FYI, the exception is the hop-by-hop extension header.)

I do not dispute that this sentence reached WG consensus. However, I want
to ask if it has IETF consensus. In my opinion, this sentence should read

   With one exception, extension headers are not processed, inserted,
   deleted or modified by any node along a packet's delivery path, until
   the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case
   of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6
   header.

I believe this was always the intended meaning of the word "processed"
from the earliest design phase of IPv6, but some people have read this
text as allowing insertion, deletion or modification of headers. IMHO
it needs to be clarified.

I'd also like to see if it has IETF consensus.  I've never understood
why we can't correct text when it has been misunderstood and while
(almost?) everyone agrees it's really misunderstanding according to
the intent of the author of the text.
I stated it in a bit more detail at the time of WGLC:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg25489.html

Brian hinted that the wg probably just got stuck about this discussion
and realistically we can only discuss it in the IETF last call:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg25490.html

My understanding is that that's why we're now having this thread and I
fully support and appreciate it.  I guess this also answers the
question of whether we're re-spinning it here.  In fact, in my
understanding that's exactly the point of having both WG and IETF last
calls.

As for the actual text, I support the suggested text by Brian.  I
would probably propose something slightly different myself, but I'm
fine as long as the clarity issue is resolved/improved.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

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