Lilian, Jinmei,
>
> > Is this draft going to RFC status anytime soon? A lot of the basic
> > behavior has changed between versions 02 and 03.
>
No kidding. I have pretty strong feelings that the changes related to
section 4.1 are bad. Primarily because this behavior was specified more
that two years ago. It has been implemented by multiple vendors. The
previous definition of how ancillary data was to be received by TCP
applications was workable as written, given some clarifications. A
Wholesale discarding of the mechanism was unnecessary.
I regret that I missed the discussion which resulted in the "consensus" to
change this. It should be changed back to its previous behavior.
> Most of them are clarifications on obscure stuff in the former drafts
> and results of solving open issues. I believe the current spec is
> still quite compatible with the former behavior in practical point of
> view.
>
> I admit, however, that some of the changes are controversial and that
> some of them surely break the backward compatibility. I'd like to
> discuss the issues in the ML and (if we have time) in Salt Lake City.
>
> > Would you say that version 03 is a fairly stabilized draft?
>
Hopefully not, in my opinion.
tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
