Hi Brian,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM
> To: Fernando Gont
> Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt>
> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
>
> On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
> ...
> > P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit on the length of the header chain,
> I
> > must say I symphatize with that (for instance, check the last
> individual
> > version of this I-D, and you'll find exactly that). But the wg didn't
> > want that in -- and I did raise the issue a few times. So what we
> have
> > is what the 6man wg had consensus on.
>
> I agree that this was the WG consensus after considerable discussion,
> which included Fred, so I'm not sure why we're discussing it again
> during IETF LC.
Technical matters should be discussed as they come to light; not
dismissed because of some real or perceived deadline. That was what
got us the 1280 MTU in the first place. Quoting from Steve Deering:
" We would like to get this issue settled as
soon as possible, since this is the only thing holding up the publication
of the updated Proposed Standard IPv6 spec (the version we expect to advance
to Draft Standard), so let's see if we can come to a decision before the ID
deadline at the end of next week (hoping there isn't any conflict between
"thoughtful analysis" and "let's decide quickly" :-)."
So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of "thoughtful
analysis" so much as the fact that **they were rushing to get a spec out
the door**. So now, 16 years later, we get to put it back on the 6man
charter milestone list.
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
