John,
On 13/02/2017 12:05, Leddy, John wrote:
I’m trying to understand how a ban of this functionality would work. Is it
targeted at vendor products, precluding them from implementing the
functionality?
It's targetted at interoperability across the Internet. We can never stop
people doing whatever they please inside a private domain, obviously.
As always, there are no protocol police.
If there is a technical problem that can be solved by using EH insertion
within a domain where there are no harmful side effects, it should be able to
be used.
In a software networking world where functionality is being deployed that is
not from traditional network vendors; solutions that solve problems
efficiently will get deployed.
We had a lot of this conversation in a slightly different form prior to
RFC 6437. It proved impossible to specify "local domain" rules that could
reach consensus. I think we'd have the same problem trying to write rules
for header insertion/deletion within a domain. But in any case, that isn't
the target for RFC2460bis: the target is the Internet.
Brian
John Leddy
From: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of "Eric Vyncke
(evyncke)" <evyncke(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Date: Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 3:56 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh(_dot_)krishnan(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>, 神明達哉
<jinmei(_at_)wide(_dot_)ad(_dot_)jp>
Cc: "6man(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <6man(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, IETF Discussion
list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>,
"draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet
Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Suresh, Jinmei and Fernando,
I fully agree with you Suresh, the goal of an IETF last call is to get NEW
discussion and to re-do the lengthy discussions we had on 6MAN WG.
-éric
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of Suresh Krishnan
<suresh(_dot_)krishnan(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Date: Saturday 11 February 2017 at 07:11
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei(_at_)wide(_dot_)ad(_dot_)jp>
Cc: "6man(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <6man(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, IETF Discussion
list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>, Fernando Gont
<fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com>,
"draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet
Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Hi Jinmei,
On Feb 10, 2017 1:23 PM, "神明達哉"
<jinmei(_at_)wide(_dot_)ad(_dot_)jp<mailto:jinmei(_at_)wide(_dot_)ad(_dot_)jp>>
wrote:
At Thu, 9 Feb 2017 18:30:11 -0300,
Fernando Gont
<fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com<mailto:fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
While I largely agree with Fernando on everything he said, I have to
admit most of the points are just repeated from the 6man discussion,
and won't get us anywhere new by discussing these again at this point.
I guess the only new input for the IETF last call is this:
2) However, some folks came up with proposals to insert EH, on the basis
that "RFC2460 does not explicitly ban EH insertion". If there's people
arguing that, we clearly need to make this clear in the spec.
3) There was a consensus call, yes. When the call was made on the
mailing-list, the vast majority of supporters of "let's keep the
ambiguity" were folks from the same company as "2)". I have no idea if
this changes (or not) "consensus"... but this is clearly an important
datapoint.
Although I don't want to point a finger at particular people or
organizations without an evidence, I guess not a small number of 6man
participants (not only those who explicitly spoke up here) suspected
that the decision process was biased with the influence of a large and
powerful organization and the process and resulting "consensus" was
not really a fair one. And I'm not an exception to it - in fact, it
was so unbelievable to me that we can't clarify an ambiguity even when
we were also open for future extensions, that I couldn't think of
other reasons than a company agenda.
Of course, it's quite possible that it was just a coincidence that
many people with the same organization genuinely thought we should
leave it ambiguous while many others strongly thought we should
clarify it but few (if not no) people from that organization supported
the clarification. But I don't think we can prove it either way.
But as Fernando said, I believe this point (and that several, and
arguably more, participants suspected it) should be included in making
the decision at the IESG and at the IETF last call. And, whatever the
decision, it would be more productive to move on after that and use
our time for some other things.
I am guessing that the people who spoke up during the WG process to not put
in an outright prohibition would make their case along with their arguments
here as well. We are only a week into a four week long last call.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------