Michael,
One of the alternatives on the table is to define the field
as reserved for future use. I think that would answer your point.
At the moment we have a header field described only in non-normative
text. I feel that is very confusing for implementors.
Brian
Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter writes:
> > The only concrete proposals I have ever seen for use of the Flow Label
> > are for QOS. Everything else has been hand-waving. We need to decide.
> > It's unthinkable to leave this big mystery gap in the middle of the
> > IPv6 header.
>
> You know, this reminds me of having a bright shiney
> quarter burning to be spent by virtue of the fact
> that it's there. The eight bits in the ip4 header
> for TOS were standardized but not widely
> implemented. That allowed us to go back
> 20 years later with a little bit more time and
> understanding to create a solution that's at
> least plausible. Considering that most QoS is
> still at the leap of faith stage, prudence
> seems like a perfectly reasonable stance.
>
> Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
