On 8/9/19 14:55, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote: > >> > >> Why do these kind of arguments emerge right now instead of 5 years > >> ago? We left the “problem “ for 5 years? And suddenly we notice them? > >> How interesting. > > > One possibility: All this kind of arguments did emerge a long time ago > > -- NAmely, when working on rfc2460bis, which eventually became > > RFC8200. As a results of the problems associated with EH-insertion, > > there was IETF consensus to explicitly ban it in RFC8200. Maybe some > > 6man'ers were not subscribed to the spring wg list, were quite > > surprised to see documents relying on EH-insertion (one ins spring, and > > another, indirectly, in lsr), and hence decided to comment. > > I would suggest that the result was slightly different. > > We decided in RFC8200 that EH-insertion by random devices for randomly > defined purposes was banned. > > That if a device/operator needed to do that, that they ought to use IPIP > insertion. We failed to actually follow through with RFC8504 to make > it possible to actually use IPIP in a general case. > > What I think that we wound up in RFC8200, and I think that it was > intentionally very subtly under-stated by the AD at the time, was that any > IETF Specification could in effect make any rule it wanted, and it > would be subject to IETF Last Call and IESG review.
Yeah, that's IETF process, right? You can make any rule that you want (assuming you do it within a wg with the proper scope), and you get wg review and ietf-wide review. No new here. And I don't know why the rules should be any different for eh-insertion. > So what we banned was EH-insertion by vendors or operators without > significant (standards-level) thought as to applicability. Huh? EH insertion is banned. If you want to violate that, you have to publish a spec that updates RFC8200. Either to remove the corresponding text in RFC8200, or at least to include an "UPdates: RFC8200" tag, such that folks that read RFC8200 know what are the excemptions to the rule. > We are now here, > we are supposed to be discussing if this use case, along with it's > applicability, warant a reasonable exception. I assume by "we" you mean IETF. Because this doesn't look like a minor modification to IPv6. Hence, that would be out of scope for 6man. 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
