[LAC-TF] En Cisco-Land, moviendo IPv6 a full standard (Fwd: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard)

[Fernando Gont]

Estimados,

Esto esta sucediendo respecto del movimiento de RFC2460 a estandar, en
IETF-land.


Un ejemplo de como una compañia (Cisco) evidentemente define las cosas a
su gusto y placer.


P.S.: Estimados "evangelizadores de IETF", please, antes de vender
historias de Disney, tengan contacto con la realidad.


Saludos, y <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PreAABChTyQ>,
Fernando




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet
Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:12:54 +0100
From: otroan at employees.org
To: Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com>
CC: Joel M. Halpern <jmh at joelhalpern.com>, IETF discussion list
<ietf at ietf.org>

Fernando,

It is a simple logical consequence.

Middleboxes do not exist in the IPv6 architecture.
There is no interpretation of 2460 that can lead to an implementor
inserting headers other places than at the source.
Therefore, there is no interoperability issue in RFC2460 nor any
ambiguity that needs to be resolved in RFC2460.

We're not writing law, we're writing interoperable protocol.

Ole


> On 17 Feb 2017, at 13:40, Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> On 02/15/2017 07:18 AM, otroan at employees.org wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Ole, it is true that we write in English, and there is always room for
>>>>> "interpretation", sometimes reasoanble room, sometimes not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But in this case we have a demonstrated difference in how people
>>>>> understand the existing text.  When we have such a demonstrated
>>>>> difference, we have an obligation to address it.
>>>> 
>>>> This particular issue has caused no interoperability issue,
>>> 
>>> May I ask what's the data that support this statement?
>> 
>> From the shepherd's writeup:
>>   IPv6 is implemented on most platforms (hosts, routers, servers, etc.),
>>   including proprietary and open source.  A list of products that have
>>   received the IPV6 Ready logo can be found at:
>> 
>>   https://www.ipv6ready.org/db/index.php/public/?o=4
> 
> This has nothing to do wth the interoperability problems that may be
> caused by a middlebox that inserts EHs.
> 
> 
> 
>>> You certainly have no way of knowing this, or whether interoperability
>>> issues may arise in the future.
>> 
>> Yes, we do know if our protocols have interoperability issues.
>> Have you implemented RFC2460? I have. So have many others on this list.
>> In the context of implementing 2460 there just is no ambiguity and this issue will never arise.
> 
> Huh?  Yes, if you connect two IPv6 devices, without a middle-box
> inserting EHs in the middle, you will not experience the associated
> possible problems. What's the news here?
> 
> 
> 
>> What you are talking about is something else. You are talking about the hypothetical "What if someone standardised something new in the future?"
> 
> :-)
> 
> C'mon, Ole. Take a look at the initial versions of the SR I-D -- and, EH
> insertion has reportedly been deployed as a result of the implementation
> of such initial versions of the I-D.
> 
> 
> You can clarify that EH insertion is banned, and move rfc2460bis to full
> stanard (since that's what's supposed to be mature)
> 
> You can delay rfc2460->std, and work to update rfc2460.
> 
> Now, moving rfc2460 to full std knowingly leaving a hole there such that
> after rfc2460 is std you completely change the architecture (e2e vs
> !e2e) with EH insertion doesn't seem a serious thing to do, IMO.
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492