On 5/9/19 17:46, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > Fernando, > > >> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont >> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:18 PM >> >> 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. > > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has a normative reference to > [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion] > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-01#section-13.1 > > As such, from a process standpoint, it would not going to be published before > [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion] be itself published as RFC. And > from its name, the latter is intended to be discussed and within control of > the 6MAN WG. So I don't think that we can say that it "just rely on the AD to > keep the "DISCUSS" button pressed." > > In my mind, this should also be a clear indication that the question of > header insertion is (to be) within the control of the 6MAN WG. But you may > have a different opinion.
Maybe my mental algorithm has a bug, but: what's the point of spring working on a document that relies on something that 6man has so far rejected? You spend energy on the document and then... just sit on the I-D to see if 6man adopts voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion? Ship the document to the IESG for them to review? -- I'm lost, sorry. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
