ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

2017-03-30 17:00:08
On 30 Mar 2017, at 22:50, Brian E Carpenter 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

On 31/03/2017 10:13, Robert Raszuk wrote:
What's wrong or what is missing in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-05

?

Once we get 2460bis out of the door, we should seriously tackle that question.
Honestly it's going to be easier then. I perhaps disagree with Ole whether we
need an Updates: 2460bis but that depends on the details.

Agreed (on both points). And I think you’ll find many who want 2460bis to ship 
as proposed by our AD will also be very willing to help work through the 
issues. 

Tim

   Brian


On Mar 30, 2017 16:05, <otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org> wrote:

Robert,

Correct me if I am missing someting but the entire debate is not about
describing or not header insertion.

I am under assumption that originating hosts still can legally insert it.

It is all about to modify EH in flight - right ? Moreover concerns
raised are about side effects of it like MTU .. not lack of instructions on
how to insert, modify or remove EH elements.

So what exactly are you expecting WG to deliver as next step if 2460bis
goes fwd ? Is detecting the max MTU on end to end path even in 6man's
charter ?

You can write a new protocol specification independently of 2460bis that
does whatever it has to do, and then we can argue over that document on its
own merits.

Cheers,
Ole



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------



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