Suresh, I have snipped some of your response sentences below followed by my reply preceded by "<hs>".
This text is not normative, as you can clearly see. "headers are not" is way different from "headers must not be" <hs> Ok, I am leaning to agree with that. I already suggested replacement text for this in my earlier mail. Did you not receive it? <hs> Sorry, I didn't receive that email. Anyhow, I understand your intent and the issue in the "Future work" section is closed between us. Thanks. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:52 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF IPv6 Mailing List Subject: Re: Review comments for draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-01.txt Hi Hemant, Please find responses inline. Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Tatuya, > > I understand receiver vs. sender. I am talking about the fact that RFC > 2460 says no intermediate node may inspect/process any EH besides the > HBH EH. That is the reason for which I quote this para from section 4 > of RFC 2460: > > [With one exception, extension headers are not examined or processed > 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.] This text is not normative, as you can clearly see. "headers are not" is way different from "headers must not be" > > This text would prohibit a firewall, which is an intermediate node, to > inspect/process any EH. I also asked if any RFC exists that changed > this behavior from RFC 2460 to allow an intermediate node like a > firewall to inspect/process EH's besides the HBH. > > > I agree with you that a receiver may process the EH's in any order > except the HBH EH. No. The receiver MUST process the extension headers in the order they appear. Please see the following text from RFC2460 > Yes, my concern with text from Suresh's draft was indeed that HBH was not mentioned with > > " o Extension headers must be processed in any order they appear" I already suggested replacement text for this in my earlier mail. Did you not receive it? Anyway the intent of this text was to say " o Extension headers must be processed in any order they appear" Thanks Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
