On 02/09/2017 07:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 10/02/2017 10:30, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 02/09/2017 07:36 AM, otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org wrote:
Fernando,
Pete asked me to summarize the objections to option 1 - banning header
insertion explicitly.
I responded with the set of objections I've heard for all options, as I
couldn't see a straightforward way of only summarising for option 1.
I don't understand your message.
Do you disagree with the summary itself? Are there arguments missing?
Or is your grief that the I have distilled the arguments wrongly or put
them in a bad light?
Or are you just rehashing your position on the issue?
I think that some points are not as clear as they should be:
1) The current state of affairs with respect to IPv6 EH insertion is
that insertion is forbidden. It has always been clear to everyone.
I don't think it has. In fact, that's the whole point: some people
have *not* deduced that rule from the RFC2460/RFC1883 wording.
"It has always been clear.... till these proposals on EH insertion arised".
Since some people didn't "deduce" it from the current text, that's a
clear indication that a clarification is warranted.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492