On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 10:38 AM Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Alex, Robert, > > > > I agree fully. > > > > From an IETF process viewpoint, Suresh recently cited his email on this topic: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4MevopH9_iQglUizhoT5Rl-TjRc > > “I just want to confirm that header insertion work can be considered in the > future, and that it should be judged on its own merits and not be blocked > solely based on the header insertion related text in 2460bis.” > > > > The required justification has been provided, again and again, like current > email from Robert, Ketan and many others: > > E.g., https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/oFsaIAFXyw0PYdVpVVv9xOxYYNQ > Zafar,
Extension header insertion WAS considered by the 6man WG. draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion was discussed at length. (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VSMm27TQFeJbvsD6pDnIPA4w4Yw). The consensus from that discussion was that extension header insertion is disallowed by RFC8200 AND here are the specific problems with it. Most of the issues, particularly the attribution, have not been addressed. There is nothing precluding the EH insertion proponents from updating the draft to answer the issues to try to move it forward. So, I believe it is inaccurate to claim that EH insertion is being blocked by purist arguments to uphold RFC8200. IMO, if that claim is being made then it's a disservice to the reviewers of draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion that put in substantial effort to review, analyze, and comment on the idea. Tom > > > Thanks > > > > Regards … Zafar > > > > From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk > <rras...@gmail.com> > Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 at 5:07 AM > To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> > Cc: Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com>, 6man WG <i...@ietf.org>, > "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law - non-technical side note > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > This is really spot on and very brilliant summary of the state we are in ! > > > > And since last 25 years rather proved that the first options is not working > the choice seems pretty clear that we should rather choose the second one. > > > > Best, > > R. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:57 AM Alexandre Petrescu > <alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is a non-technical side note about the Spirit and Letter of the Law > in IPv6 WG. > > In these discussions about IPv6 like routing header, insertion, > mutability, 64bit, limited domains, multihoming, smart end dumb network, > and numerous other 'tussles', one is supposed to take a side among one > of those two: > > - maintain rock solid principles, continue the tradition, keep it up > working as it was designed to and that demonstrated its validity on very > large scale. > > - break away from tradition, foster innovation, things will work anyways > because humans engineer them and market regulates them. > > Only deep convictions about one of those two sides can make IPv6 > deployment and development progress. > > On my side, I cant make have such deep convictions. > > Alex > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
