In your previous mail you wrote:
But...
| 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.
Please, no - the double use of the DO header is a thing of beauty.
=> the beauty of the Hell if you try to implement it...
It, just by being there, makes clear the way the IPv6 header structure
is to work, it makes clear that headers can appear more than once,
it makes clear that the interpretation of a header depends upon where
in the sequence of headers it is found, it makes clear the onion
peeling parsing technique that is defined to apply to IPv6 headers,
and is a very clean architectural design.
=> can you explain how you express this (for instance the
interpretation of a header depends upon where it is found)
in an API?
Please don't mess with this just because it seems easier to fix everything
in concrete (this follows this follows this...) and pretend that variations
are never going to be possible.
=> variations should be possible in reception but should not be possible
in emission. I can't see a good reason to keep the complexity (with bugs
in implementations and done by programmers) because we have no real use
of it. The current recommendation level (SHOULD) is the good one (I agree
a MUST would be too strong).
(Aside from that it would be a waste of one of the 256 header type
codes for no reason whatever).
=> near half of the space (120 codes) is still free. My concern is
more the delay for a new code than the waste...
Regards
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
