> 
> So, I'd prefer to complete & document the receive case, and just leave the
> send case for a later doc to define.   That is, not have any method at all
> defined for inserting headers in the new doc for now (implementors can keep
> implementing the current spec).
> 

Only someone that has no running code for the existing API or customers
using it could reach this conclusion.  Throwing out half of the existing
mechanism is worse than throwing out the entire thing.  Real implementors
have implemented the existing mechanism and real customers are using it.
This is not an academic discussion.

What we have here in this discussion is a clear indication that the IETF
shouldn't be doing APIs.  People are free to propose and argue for courses
of action for which they won't have to bare any of the cost.  I would wish,
but have little hope, that this document be tranferred to POSIX or X/Open
for completion immediately.

Given that such good fortune is not likely.  I would argue that the existing
document should be finished as is and published as an RFC.  If after that
a group of contributors wants to create a new extension header API that is
completely distinct from the existing mechanism and DOES NOT obsolete it
that would be great.

In this way we have at least a hope that implementors and customers that
have a investment in the existing mechanism don't get orphaned but this in-
sane process.

This document has been in its current form for something on order of three
years without making forward progress.  Implementors have had no choice but
to write code to this API and customers have had little choice but to use
it.  Making substantial changes to this API at this point is just plain wrong.



Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to