Il 2020-02-27 02:14, Brian E Carpenter ha scritto:
Eric,
On 27-Feb-20 12:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Writing this without any hat,
Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this
idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200.
The draft uses an undefined term ("pop") but it does *explicitly* state in a section
called "Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH":
S14.4. Remove the SRH from the IPv6 extension header chain
If the word "penultimate" means what it means in every dictionary, this is
in-flight removal of a header, and that is explicitly against RFC 8200, section 4, first
paragraph below the diagram.
Brian,
"penultimate segment" means what it means in every dictionary, but this
is not in-fligth removal of a header.
When the packet has reached the "penultimate segment", it has reached a
node "identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header" as
stated in RFC 8200, section 4, first paragraph below the diagram
Please note that at the very end of section 3 the "Destination address"
is defined as "address of the intended recipient of the packet (possibly
not the ultimate recipient, if a Routing header is present)"
Stefano
It's possible that "penultimate" means something else, e.g. "ultimate". I don't know.
I've been puzzling over this language for months and it doesn't change. Maybe someone can finally post an
explanation, but until they do, I don't see how any WG Chair could assert rough consensus. An obviously
organised +1+1+1+1 campaign is not consensus. I don't know about you, but when I see a message whose only
content is "+1" I just delete it.
Brian
Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until the IETF last call or even
until the IESG ballot. I see little point in postponing the closing of the WGLC
and advancing the document (of course, the document shepherd will need to
carefully write the section about the rough WG consensus).
Finally, as far as I know, at the IETF we have no religion... else we would
still be running NCP or IPv4 :-)
-éric
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Warren Kumari
<war...@kumari.net>
...%<...%<....
It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards
-- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with
- and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this
category...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
i...@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
i...@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*******************************************************************
Stefano Salsano
Professore Associato
Dipartimento Ingegneria Elettronica
Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata
Viale Politecnico, 1 - 00133 Roma - ITALY
http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/
E-mail : stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it
Cell. : +39 320 4307310
Office : (Tel.) +39 06 72597770 (Fax.) +39 06 72597435
*******************************************************************
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
