In your previous mail you wrote:
As an IPv6 stack/application programmer, I'd really like to fix the
advanced API. The current situation is really mess, because
rfc2292bis does not provide backward compatibility to the old RFC
2292, and some OSes has already shipped with rfc2292bis while some
other OSes still keep RFC 2292. I believe we should basically go with
rfc2292bis, since it has fixed many issues (bugs, in fact) in the old
RFC spec, and some of them are essential for some applications
(e.g. the IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU option for DNS servers).
=> I agree. Obviously the current editor has not enough time to
do this but this must be done ASAP.
The most difficult issue would be the one for extension headers.
According to a recent discussion about MIP6 issues, the API should be
flexible enough to send/receive extension headers in any order, whereas
rfc2292bis basically assumes the recommended order of the headers
specified in RFC2460. Since it could be a fundamental change of the
API spec, I'm not sure if we can get a consensus so smoothly.
Anyways, I'll raise this issue later in a separate thread.
=> this is a deep change but not in a very used part of the spec so
perhaps we should split the advanced API into two parts in order to
be able to publish a document soon?
If possible, I'd like to see the next revision of the draft before the
next IETF meeting in London.
=> two procedural questions:
- is the change of the name of the working group makes the counter to
restart at 0?
- if we split the document into two parts, can you keep the name?
I.e. is the deadline 13 July or not?
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: we have a G6 meeting at the end of the week, I'll try to collect
comments at this occasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
