Tom, > The advice from the chairs seems to be continue discussion. The > problem with that is that EH insertion has been discussed ad nauseum > over the past two years since the draft first appeared. It seems like > we are at the point where the same arguments on the topic are just > being rehashed on the list. As you mention above, the current > consensus is that the EH insertion conflicts with RFC8200. Right now > it seems like further discussion is open ended and without any > constraints a likely outcome will be attrition and eventual > acquiescence to accepting yet another non-conformant protocol that > became so widely deployed so that it can be fixed. > > In light of this, can the chairs or AD provide some guidance or > expectations on framing any further discussion on the topic to ensure > that it's productive and the process is moving forward.
You should absolutely continue the discussion. Let me share a secret with you. Please don't share. The 6man working group has been tasked by the IETF leadership to ensure engaging discussions all year around. I have not been told the hidden establishment agenda behind this, but I can only presume that it is to keep the IPv6 enthusiasts away from affecting the real work being done in other areas of the IETF. The leadership has tasked us with circulating the discussions between the following topics: - 64 bit boundary - M/O bits - ULA or not ULA - Extension headers - Defining new mechanisms for IID formats There is a scheduled switch to the M/O bits topic in mid January. Please continue to the good work on EH in the meantime. Ole _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
