Ole, On 5/12/19 17:57, otr...@employees.org wrote: > Ron, > >> Currently, there is no consensus that IPv6 allows insertion of extension >> headers by intermediate nodes, even if those intermediate nodes are segment >> endpoints . Given this lack of consensus, the authors of network programming >> have wisely agreed to remove header insertion from the draft. >> >> Likewise, there is no consensus that IPv6 allows removal of extension >> headers by intermediate nodes, even if those intermediate nodes are segment >> endpoints. Why, then, have the authors of network programming not agreed to >> remove PSP from the draft? > > With regards to working group process; may I gently remind you that it is the > chairs that call consensus.
At the time of this writing, there's no document that has been adopted to update RFC8200 to allow for EH insertion/removal. Therefore, it's actually the other way around: unless there's such document (which there isn't, since such a document has never been adopted by 6man), the onus is on folks trying to change the status quo. And that case, progressing the document "as is" would be an outright violation of our existing standards. This has been repeated numerous times already. I think we are at a point where the ADs should take action. Most importantly Int-AD, since the spec being violated is RFC8200. 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
