Re: Higher level question about flow label

[Alex Conta]

Thanks for the clarification,
Alex

Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> > Are you saying that the "intended semantics and usage of the Flow
> > Label field" documented in the Appendix A of RFC 2460 are optional?
> 
> Optional at best, so yes.
> 
> Note that when 2460 was advanced to Draft Standard, there was IESG
> pushback on including the Appendix A definition of the Flow Label as
> part of the standard (that is why it got moved to an appendix, with
> Section 6 using the wording "still experimental and subject to
> change"). The definition is largely unproven (in the sense that folks
> agree this is the best way to provide the function) and unused at this
> point, hardly what one would expect as part of a Draft Standard.
> 
> That is not to say that it is the wrong way to do the Flow Label. But
> there is no consensus that it is the right way either.
> 
> In my view, deciding on the right useage of the bits requires first
> understanding the problem that needs to be solved.
> 
> Thomas

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature