Fernando,
>>> 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.
>
> Sorry, what I meant by "relevant AD" is: "one of the responsible ADs for
> the spec that's being violated".
>
> i.e., isn't there in the IETF process -- whether formal or informal --
> for this sort of thing to be flagged before documents get too far in the
> publication process? ("Hey, this document in your area is actually
> breaking a spec of one of my wgs" sort of thing...)
I would prefer that we calmed down a bit on the protocol policing.
We know that header insertion breaks unsuspecting source hosts if done by the
network.
It breaks (at least) PMTUD, ICMP errors and AH.
What we have said in the past is; explain how those issues are dealt with or do
not apply to your proposal.
And some form of "doing on behalf of" is not necessarily problematic.
It's the "blind" "Thou shalt not do" that I object to. As opposed to arguing on
technical grounds.
Ensuring interoperability is our purpose. Not protect 8200 as if it's a
religious text.
Ole
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
