Subject: [v6ops] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:12:26 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world/

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

While reading the document, I was wondering under which circumstances
dropping IPv6 Extension Headers is the right behavior?
Or, if dropping IPv6 Extension Headers is always just wrong?
The only related sentences I found are:

   The
   aforementioned results serve as a problem statement that is expected
   to trigger operational advice on the filtering of IPv6 packets
   carrying IPv6 Extension Headers, so that the situation improves over
   time. 

   ...

   In any case, we note that it is
   impossible to tell whether, in those cases where IPv6 packets with
   extension headers get dropped, the packet drops are the result of an
   explicit and intended policy, or the result of improper device
   configuration defaults, buggy devices, etc. 

What does it mean "so that the situation improves overtime"?
A disclaimer that this study is formulated in a neutral way, as a
precursor document for some further advice + a pointer to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-00
would be a plus IMO.