On Mar 21, 2024, at 10:58 PM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Again, I’m not saying it’s not useful. I’m saying it’s just another
>> transport - one with particular properties, but still just a transport.
>
> Extension headers are not transport protocols per the standard,
> RFC8200 clearly distinguishes extension headers from upper layer
> protocols which can be transport layer protocols.
IPv6 EH = extension headers to IPv6
IMO, IPv6 EH per this draft = just another transport protocol
RFC8200 does not apply to this proposal.
There is NOTHING that can be done for IPv4 to permit legacy endpoints to
silently ignore an EH when so desired by the sender. That’s what makes IPv6 EHs
different than this (IMO, again) transport protocol.
It’s misleading to call this proposal an EH or having to do with IPv4.
It doesn’t help the programmer or user by doing so.
It doesn’t imbue the proposed solution with any properties a transport protocol
couldn’t have, by design.
I don’t think this is being proposed in the correct IETF area; it belongs in
TSVWG.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
