> I think as has already been suggested we are having two different > discussions masquerade as one. I obviously can't speak for Robert but it > seems to me he is not saying the IESG ought to approve every (or any) > extension of IP, he is merely saying each should have an option number > assigned. Why assign a dangerous, harmful protocol an option? For the > same > reason sex offenders in the US have to register - so everyone can be aware > of their presence and take the appropriate precautions.
The problem is the really small size of the option type field in IPv6. There really only are 5 bits available for numbering both the hop by hop and the end to end options. That makes for a grand total of 32, of which three are assigned by basic IPv6 specs. So, there really are good reasons to be somewhat conservative with the assignments. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
