ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2017-02-14 11:16:39
On 02/14/2017 01:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I want to reinforce this.

There are two separate but related issues here.  One is what behavior we
want to require.  The other is whether we make the document clear.

I think choosing to leave a document going to Internet Standard
ambiguous is a serious mistake, bordering on failure.  We know that the
choice of permitting insertion of extension headers has interoperability
implications.  There are weveral ways we can clarify the text.
[...]

But leaving it ambiguous ought to be a non-starter.

Personally, I would go with "MUST NOT", as I think that is the robust
and interoperable answer.  But that is MUCH less important to me than
our being unambiguous.

Agreed with the quoted part above.

Now regarding the possible options, may I ask: How could we possibly
allow EH insertion in this document, and still move rfc2460 to full
standard?

Allowing EH insertion in rfc2460bis would essentially preclude us from
moving it to full standard.

OTOH, as you correctly note, "I think choosing to leave a document going
to Internet Standard ambiguous is a serious mistake, bordering on failure".

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492




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