Robert Elz wrote:
...
> I actually treat this message as a concession that there are no strong
> enough arguments that can be made to ipngwg that would cause model (c)
> for the flow label to be adopted.
I don't see where you get that from. As I just said to Jarno, a flow label
with diffserv semantics enhances the diffserv model in the case of ESP headers.
No such enhancement is possible for IPv4. Does the WG want this?
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
