Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> 9. this form is MUTABLE:
>
> If the intention is to enable contractual aggregation needed
> by e.g. the
> diffserv model, domain must be able to remark the value
> (change it), but
> also the new value needs to be taken from the set of
> standardized values, so
> that the semantics of the value is always unambiguous. The
> mutability allows
> cutting off "freeloaders" (as put so eloquently by Steve
> Blake), and enables
> the diffserv aggregation model.
I am sorry, but this is BS. The diffserv model already
has a mutable field giving the provider ultimate control
and doesn't need a second one. In fact allowing this
proposed use to be mutable will ensure that subsiquent
providers have no clue what the origin intended. If the
provider wants to cut people off, it can set the TC to 0,
or drop the packet. Allowing providers to modify these
bits adds no value to the existing diffserv capabilities.
Tony
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
