Subject: Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:04:00 -0700

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Converting the discuss to a comment on the assumption the proposed text
will make it into the document under brian's watch.

If you need to find the transport header due to configured policy and you
can't due to being unable to parse the extensions chain your configured
action will be to drop. That perhaps weasels it's way through section 2.1
requirements but it's still quite ugly.

...
former discuss

This is a dicuss because I'd like to see if I'm in the rough in this.

Devices generally considered to be IP routers in fact are able to or find
it necessary to forward on the basis of headers other than the IP header
e.g. the transport header. By the definition applied in the problem
statement all ipv6 capable routers in the internet that  I'm aware are or
are capable of being middleboxes. 

I would welcome the existence proof of an ipv6 capable router which is
not capable of being a middlebox by the definition applied in the problem
statement.

I'm not sure that's a glaring flaw in the document but it certainly is
with our vocabulary around taxonomy if true.