Subject: Consensus Call on adopting draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header-00

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:31:44 -0400

All,
      I would like to gauge the WG's opinion on adopting 
draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header-00 as a 6MAN WG document.  All 
comments, for or against, should be sent to the mailing list or the 
chairs by September 15th, 2009.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:04:21 +0200

I am for adopting this draft as WG document.

It says that RH types should be allocated through "IETF Review" or "IESG
  Approval" - these methods seem to me the most appropriated because
offer the widest possible review through IETF - IESG and WG.  This is
needed knowing that RH has large importance in the sequence of headers.

The other methods are "Private Use", "Experimental Use", "Hierararchical
Allocation", "FCFS", "Expert Review", "Spec Req'd", "RFC Req'd",
"Standards Action" (rfc5226).  The first four seem not adapted for such
an important header while the latter three seem too much work for such
simple action as properly reserving a number.

Alex

Brian Haberman a écrit :
> All, I would like to gauge the WG's opinion on adopting 
> Regards, Brian 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email-masked] Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:59:32 -0700

> chairs by September 15th, 2009.

I want to see it adopted,

Stig

> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:52:41 +0300

Alexandru,

> I am for adopting this draft as WG document.

Great!

> needed knowing that RH has large importance in the sequence of headers.

Right, particularly if we get it wrong and a security hole opens up ;-)

> simple action as properly reserving a number.

Yes, though RFC 4727 does already allocate experimental use values for 
routing header types. I view these as a useful thing, allowing people to 
try out weird things with numbers set aside for such a purpose. RFC 3692 
explains how such numbers need to be used carefully to avoid breaking 
other things on the Internet.

And yes, Standards Action is too strong requirement for this type of a 
method. We might want to publish an experimental specification that uses 
a new routing header type, for instance.

Jari

---

From: Arnaud Ebalard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:13:44 +0200

Hello,

> I am for adopting this draft as WG document.

+1

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:45:46 -0400

There were no objections to this document being adopted.  I will 
instruct the authors to publish the next version as a 6MAN WG document.

Regards,
Brian