On 02/09/2017 08:36 PM, otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org wrote:
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.
You can now optimize this discussion without having to bother the
whole IETF list. Just look up the counter arguments in the previously
posted summary.
We're moving RFC2460 to full Standard. You have to make arguments to
*change* the spec, not to clarify what's already in there -- for
instance, ne would expect that part of the benefit of the process is to
clarify the spec where necessary.
If you can make enough of a case to enable EH insertion, then propose
that as what it actually is: a *modification* to the spec.
If we move RFC2460 to full Std without even being able to tell people
whether this is an end-to-end protocol or not, I think that would be a
*very* bad outcome.
Me, I'm done with this discussion. A number of us (Enno Rey, Mark Smith,
and others) have commented on our view on the topic (for IETF folks that
didn't participate in the 6man discussions).
Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492