I am on the road, so apologies, if the formatting of this message is messed
up.
>Tony Hain wrote:
>>Alex Conta wrote:
>
>> To me it is simple: I see the IPv6 main header divided into functions
>> for forwarding,
>> and functions for QoS.
>
>You appear to have forgotten that the endpoints need to
>communicate with each other. The header is also used for
>that primary function, or the others will not matter.
Perhaps my text was too abstract: "functions for forwarding", above, include
the packet forwarding/sending performed by the source host, and the packet
receiving performed on the destination host
> Anyway the point is that we are
> being asked to change an existing definition to accomidate
> a capability that another WG really needs, but refused to
> create for itself in the field it had to work with. Why
> should we do that? [...]
There are no changes to the normative definition in RFC 2460 -- see the AD
clarification. There is a new model added.
You make a point, which, I think at this moment, I understand and appreciate
well.
Regards,
Alex
