First, there is a lot of disagreement and vagueness about when one
should mark an RFC as "updating" another RFC. So it would be hard for
me to claim that you are wrong. But it would also be hard to claim that
what you propose is necessary.
In this particular case, my reading as shepherd is that the changes
relative to 8754 apply only when this document is being implemented. If
one is not implementing the behaviors in this document, one does not
need to worry about it when implementing 8754. Based on that and my
understanding of "updates", I would not expect this document to assert
that it updates 8754.
Yours,
joel
On 10/1/2020 3:10 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
Pablo & IESG,
May I ask why, if you are going against RFC8754, you do it in this
documents as opposed to formally update RFC8754?
Put another way: what was the point of 6man (and eventually the IETF) of
standardizing RFC8754 if then this document is going to change the spec
without formally updating it?
Thanks,
Fernando
On 30/9/20 10:18, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote:
[....]
...
(1b) It would be nice if the behavior in §4.1.1 were also
specified using pseudocode. As written, I am not sure if the intent
is to process any upper-layer header or only specific ones. Is the
objective for this operation to be similar to the one in
§4.3.1.2/rfc8754? Please be specific on what is meant by "allowed
by local configuration".
[PC] Yes, we can structure the text in 4.1.1 in pseudocode form. The
[PC] processing is not the same as RFC8754/Section 4.3.1.2. The
“allowed by [PC] local configuration” is to enable the processing of
only specific types [PC] of Upper-layer Headers for packets addressed
to an SRv6 SID of the [PC] specific behaviors. E.g. An operator may
not wish to have BGP sessions [PC] (or in general any TCP traffic)
destined to a local SID, but may want to [PC] enable ICMPv6 packet
processing for OAM purposes.
[....]
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
