In your previous mail you wrote: >P.S. As an aside, it occurs to me that it might be clearer to define a new >"Intermediate Destination Options" header to take the place of DO1. Then it >could be declared that this new header (if present) MUST appear before the >Routing Header, and that mutable options (if present) MUST appear in either >this new header or a Hop-by-Hop header. Or to put it another way, mutable >options wouldn't be allowed any more in a Destination Options header. This >would also make the spec cleaner - it could get rid of the special case >notations explaining the difference between DO1 and DO2. Sounds reasonable, but seems to me like a significant change for a small benefit at this point. => Steve, I think we can avoid the change. The current DO1+DO2 stuff is very hard to implement and there are many reasons to introduce a third placement for destination options: we (IPng WG) should accept that the destination option stuff must be rewritten, if possible for the IPng meeting then: - write a draft before Friday - ask for a slot to explain the issue and proposed solution(s) Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
