On 7/12/19 04:19, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > (responding on spring mailing list) > > Hi Fernando, > >> On Dec 7, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com >> <mailto:fg...@si6networks.com>> wrote: >> >> On 6/12/19 23:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Again, comment at the end... >>> On 07-Dec-19 14:37, Fernando Gont wrote: >>>> On 6/12/19 22:15, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>> and if such a thing is required, an update to RFC8200 should be done. >>>>> >>>>> Why does that follow? Alternatively, >>>>> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming could acknowledge that >>>>> it deviates from RFC8200. >>>> >>>> You can deviate from s "should", not from a "must". This is an outright >>>> violation of a spec, rather than a mere "deviation". >>>> >>>> >>>>> Whether that's acceptable would be a question for the IETF Last >>>>> Call rather than any single WG. >>>> >>>> I would expect that a WG cannot ship a document that is violating an >>>> existing spec, where the wg shipping the document is not in a position >>>> of making decisions regarding the spec being violated. >>>> >>>> That would be like a waste of energy and time for all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> At the moment, the draft only mentions RFC8200 in a context that >>>>> discusses neither insertion nor removal of extension headers, which >>>>> is beside the point. Like draft-voyer, if it describes a violation >>>>> of RFC8200, shouldn't that be explicit in the text? >>>>> >>>>> There's a lot of jargon in >>>>> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming. I can't tell from the >>>>> jargon whether "insert" means "insert on the fly" and whether "Pop >>>>> the SRH" means "delete on the fly". Should those terms be clarified >>>>> before the draft advances? >>>> >>>> Well, if it's not clear to you, it would seem to me that the simple >>>> answer would be "yes". >>> >>> But if "insert" refers to the encapsulating node at the SR domain >>> ingress, it's no problem, and if "pop" simply means doing normal >>> routing header processing, it's no problem. It simply isn't clear in >>> the text, at least not clear to me. >> >> The fact that a folk that has been deeply involved with IPv6 cannot >> unequivocally tell what they talking about should be an indication with >> respect to how ready the document is to be shipped. >> >> (pop when you are the destination but SL!=0 is essentially 'in the >> network removal’) > > It is not obvious to me why you think this is a violation of RFC8200 > though it is possible that I misread your comment. The relevant text I > am looking at is > > " Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not > processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery > path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, > in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field > of the IPv6 header.” > > which seems to permit it. Can you please clarify where there is a > violation?
In the context of RFC8200, where the text you have quoted is present, can you tell me which address other than that of the final destination can be in the Destination Address of the packet? 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
