On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 05:37, <bruno.decra...@orange.com> wrote: > > Fernando, <snip> > > - Read the mailing list and you will see that everyone do not share your > opinion. So at least one person is wrong. I think that it would help if > everyone, including you, could consider that they/you _may_ be wrong, at > least to better understand the comments been made by others. And possibly > the text from RFC 8200 is not clear, but this is what we have. And this is > the text to use to support the claim that this text is violated.
The final interpretation and intent of text in RFC8200 should be up to 6man, not SPRING, when there is ambiguity and dispute, as 6man is the ultimate design authority for IPv6. RFC5704, "Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful": " In particular, the IAB considers it an essential principle of the protocol development process that only one SDO maintains design authority for a given protocol, with that SDO having ultimate authority over the allocation of protocol parameter code-points and over defining the intended semantics, interpretation, and actions associated with those code- points." IETF WGs would qualify as standards development organisations. Those of us in 6man during the clarifications in this area of RFC8200 know the intent. It was specifically about modification of the EH chain, and was in response to the 'draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion' Internet Draft. > - Why have _you_ filled an errata against RFC 8200, in order to change the > technical content of this section, if you don't agree that one may red " > Destination Address field of the IPv6 header" as the IPv6 address present in > the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header been received by the End > node (or even sent by the source node) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5933 > > > > At minimum, I think that we can agree that there is another reading, as > > > expressed by other WG participants, and hence I disagree with "of course". > > > > No, I argue that there is not.IN fact, I argue that folks have been > > following that strategy for way too long, and that's quite frustrating. > > > > > > > > > Personally, I understand "Destination Address" as "Destination Address > > > field of the IPv6 header." as indicated explicitly in the text quoted. > > > > The quoted text is from RFC8200. In the context of RFC8200 the > > Destination Address can only contain the ultimate destination of the > > packet. Where's the ambiguity? > > > > And let me ask you, as chair, another question, that will lead you to > > the same place: is IPv6 and end to end protocol? > > That's not a question for a spring chair to answer. > I'm reading the sentence in RFC8200. If we can't agree on the meaning of this > explicit sentence, I don't think that discussing philosophical r religious > question is going to help. > > > The fact that I may claim that RFC8200 contains a receipe for BBQ does > > not actually mean that that's the case. > > You do realize that your above sentence also applies to yourself? So how is > this helping to progress? > Can we please focus on the RFC8200 sentence? I'm really trying to understand > your point. > Let's stick to the texts of documents. > > > > > > > I'm fine with having this clarified with 6MAND chairs and AD. That been > > > said, the Internet AD would have an opportunity to DISCUSS this. > > > > For the record, I think this is a major issue that should be cleared > > before it can be claimed that there is consensus to request publication > > of this document. > > OK, this is recorded. > > > > > > > > > >> does not specify any routing header type, and hence the meaning is > > >> unambiguous (there's no destination other than the final destination of > > >> the packet). > > >> > > >> This is of course in line with IPv6 being and end-to-end protocol, and > > >> crucial for other related mechanisms to work as expected (such as IPsec > > >> AH). Please also check: draft-smith-6man-in-flight-eh-insertion-harmful. > > >> > > >> So, in order to proceed with the document, there are multiple options > > >> forward: > > >> > > >> 1) Just remove the corresponding text/behavior > > > > > > That is indeed one option. But as of today, this is not my assumption. > > > > > >> 2) Implement a similar mechanism in an RFC8200-compliant manner (e.g., > > >> re-encap) > > > > > > SRH insert is out of scope of this specification. So yes, IPv6 encaps is > > > used. > > > We are talking SRH removal. I'm assuming that you are referring to PSP. > > > My understanding is that this function (PSP) is to distribute the > > > (forwarding plane) load between the PSP and the USP. In a way similar to > > > MPLS PHP. But in all cases, this is not about SRH insertion. > > > > It's about SRH removal, which is also forbiden by RFC8200. > > > > > > > > > > >> 3) Do the necessary standards work to update RFC8200, such that it > > >> allows this sort of behavior, and only ship the network-programming > > >> draft for publication when at least 6man has consensus to proceed on > > >> that path. > > > > > > Not the preferred path as of today. > > > > Yes, it should be evident that it seems the preferred path has been > > (starting with EH insertion at the time) to circumvent existing > > specifications. > > > > > > > > > > > >> P.S.: I will go through the document once again... but the same > > >> reasoning should be applied to any EH-insertion/removal at a place other > > >> than the source of the packet or its final destination. > > > > > > It looks to me that SRH insertion and SRH removal are to be treated > > > differently. > > > > I don't see how or why. > > SRH insertion is done by a node, on the path, which is not the destination of > the IPv6 addresses. > SRH removal is done by a node which is receiving the packet because it's IPv6 > address is in the destination of the IPv6 packet. > > > Both violate the same requirement in RFC8200. > > We are not having a conversation, so let's not repeats the same point again > and again. > > Your opinion has been noted. So does opinions on this same point expressed by > other wg participants. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Fernando Gont > > SI6 Networks > > e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com > > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
