Hi Fernando, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Fernando Gont <ferna...@gont.com.ar> wrote: > > Hello, Suresh, > > On 2/9/19 19:07, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > [....] >>>> So, we should probably explore the motivation for Option 2). If the >>>> motivation is not sufficient, we should probably standardize on Option 1. >>> >>> My argument would be: >>> Folks would do whatever they please with 1). If somehow they feel the >>> need to do 2), they should *refrain from even suggesting it*, post an >>> internet draft that proposes to update RFC8200 to allow for the >>> insertion of EHs, wait for that to be adopted and published, and only >>> then suggest to do EH insertion. >> >> I have put down my thoughts on the future of header insertion work in a >> mail to the 6man list in May 2017. The mail can be found below >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4MevopH9_iQglUizhoT5Rl-TjRc > > This seems e bit misleading. What I would expect is that before any work > is published on EH-insertion, the IPv6 standard is updated to allow for > EH insertion. (plese see bellow)
> >>> P.S.: Given the amount of discussion there has been on this topic in the >>> context of RFC8200, I'd like to hope that there's no draft-ietf document >>> suggesting EH-insertion or, if there is, the relevant ADs and chairs >>> make sure that's not the case anymore. >> >> Yes. If a draft violates RFC8200 and it hits the IESG for evaluation, I >> will certainly hold a DISCUSS position until the violations are fixed. > > Since there have been plenty of attempts to do EH insertion or leave the > IPv6 standard ambiguous in this respect, and the IETF has had consensus > that EH insertion is not allowed, I think it would be bad, wastefull, > tricky, and even dangerous to let a document go through the whole > publication process, and just rely on the AD to keep the "DISCUSS" > button pressed. > > Put another way: what'd be the rationale for having a draft-ietf and > have the corresponding wg ship the document with something that clearly > goes against IETF consensus, and that the relevant AD has declared that > wouldn't let pass? In short, this is not the case. I am *not* the relevant AD for the SRv6 Network Programming draft. If this document was in 6man I would have flagged it much earlier like I did for the SRH draft. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
