>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:03:35 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[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?
Does anyone have an objection to this idea? If not, the procedure
would be:
1. remove extension header issues from the current draft.
2. solve (a part of) open issues except extension header ones.
3. based on the result of 2, issue a revised version of the rfc2292bis
draft. The draft name would be either
draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-03.txt
or
draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2292bis-00.txt
4. solve extension header issues, and issue a new draft entitled
(e.g.) draft-ietf-ipv6-exthdr-api-00.txt
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
