Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:49:16 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains
	Author(s)       : Fernando Gont
                          Vishwas Manral
                          Ronald P. Bonica
	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-05.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2013-08-31

Abstract:
   The IPv6 specification allows IPv6 header chains of an arbitrary
   size.  The specification also allows options which can in turn extend
   each of the headers.  In those scenarios in which the IPv6 header
   chain or options are unusually long and packets are fragmented, or
   scenarios in which the fragment size is very small, the first
   fragment of a packet may fail to include the entire IPv6 header
   chain.  This document discusses the interoperability and security
   problems of such traffic, and updates RFC 2460 such that the first
   fragment of a packet is required to contain the entire IPv6 header
   chain.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 07:58:47 +1200

Hi,

> 3.  Terminology
> 
>    For the purposes of this document, the terms Extension Header, Header
>    Chain, First Fragment, and Upper-layer Header are used as follows:
> 
>    Extension Header:
> 
>       Extension Headers are defined in Section 4 of [RFC2460].
>       [IANA-PROTO] provides a list of assigned Internet Protocol Numbers
>       and designates which of those protocol numbers also represent
>       extension headers.

The final clause is totally incorrect - the IANA list does not (today)
identify extension headers. draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit has the details
in its IANA Considerations.

Assuming draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit is approved, this will change,
but for that purpose you'd need a blocking (normative) reference
to draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit to guarantee the correct sequence of
publication.

     Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:50:02 -0300

> to draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit to guarantee the correct sequence of

I thought that's what we were intending (assuming
draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit goes smoothly) -- but I realize we missed
the procedural piece of making sure of the correct sequence of
publication. So I guess possible paths are:

1) Changing the above paragraph to something along the lines of:

   Extension Headers are defined in Section 4 of [RFC2460].
   As a result of [draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit], [IANA-PROTO] provides
   a list of assigned Internet Protocol Numbers and designates which of
   those protocol numbers also represent extension headers.

(or something along these lines... please suggest alternative phrasing
if deemed appropriate)

2) Change the above paragraph to:

   Extension Headers are defined in Section 4 of [RFC2460], and various
   extension headers have been specified in [RFC2460] itself and in
   other later documents.

(which IMO would still be fine, since we don't really need to provide
the full list here)

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 13:28:44 +1200

Hi Fernando,

I'm biased, but I'd prefer the reference (your first suggestion), unless
the ext-transmit draft gets stuck in the process, in which case you could
make an editorial change later, even up to AUTH48.

BTW check the IANA URL too; I think you had a pointer to a .txt file, but
these days IANA is .xml based.

Regards
   Brian