Ron, On 5/9/19 06:01, Ron Bonica wrote: > Fernando, Zhenqiang, > > You both have valid points. Maybe I am becoming too tolerant of > deviations from the specification.
This is not a deviation in the spec. It's an outright violation of the spec. This topic has a rich history in 6man, which I will summarize as follows: 1) Folks proposed the segment routing header I-D with the argument that it wasn't clear whether EH-insertion was allowed in RFC2460 or not -- when it was clear to virtually everyone else that it was forbidden 2) The segment-routing header I-D was adopted on the condition that all text related to EH insertion should be removed. 3) Since we were in the process of doing rfc2460bis, we had the discussion to make the text crystal-clear that EH-insertion was forbidden. -- in fact, it already was. But based on 1) we discussed to make it 200% clear. 4) Some folks argued not to add text on the topic, leaving, from their pov, the spec ambiguous. This "version" of rfc2460bis was shipped from the wg. 5) During IETF LC of rfc2460bis, the issue was raised again, and there was finally consensus to add very explicit text noting that EH insertion is forbidden. And this became RFC8200. My question to the spring wg chairs and routing area ADs therefore is: how come the wg adopted a document (e.g.: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-01) when it contains outright violations of specs (RFC8200) that are not in the charter of spring wg to update? (as far as I understand). Thanks, -- 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
