On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:35 AM Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> wrote: > > Joel, > > > Part of the reason we write restrictions and requirements into RFCs is so > > that we do not have to repeat the arguments. > > > > If the proponents of the insertion have arguments for why it is now okay, > > they need to make those arguments. And they need to make sure that the > > discussion is taken to the relevant working groups. The burden should not > > be on those who are asking that attention be paid to existing RFCs. > > As far as I know, but I'm trying to stay away from the actual proposals and > argue this generally, no-one is proposing to update the RFC8200 header > insertion text. > What people are proposing are for specific domains. And given that, I believe > people need to argue the technical merits of those specific proposals.
Ole, I don't believe the requirements of RFC8200 were ever intended to be conditional based on the runtime environment. Either it's IPv6 or it's not. I would be opposed to bifurcating standard protocols so that they work differently in the open Internet versus a limited domain. > As opposed to throwing the "law book" around. This is isn't just throwing the law book around. Consider that extension header insertion was proposed in draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion and there was much discussion on the list. There were a number of very specific arguments articulated why this is not robust and how this can break other protocols. I don't see that the proponents of haven't provided counter arguments. So I believe that the current consensus is that EH insertion is not allowed, but that 's not just because RFC8200 says so but also because there are material reasons why it's a bad idea. This doesn't preclude the possibility of the EH insertion could be accepted some day, but I don't see how that can happen unless the arguments against it are addressed. Tom > > Best regards, > Ole > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
