>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:07:33 +0200,
>>>>> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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?
Well, actually, I was thinking about the same idea. If we can split
this part, things will go quite smoothly. How do others think of
this?
> 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?
I don't think so, but I don't have the authoritative answer for this
question...
> - if we split the document into two parts, can you keep the name?
> I.e. is the deadline 13 July or not?
I'm not sure if this is acceptable, but I think we would be able to
keep the same draft name for the easier part (i.e. rfc2292bis-02 -
extension header related parts), just like when we separated jumbo
gram issues from the basic specification of IPv6.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
