> Okay with me, too.  I just tried to make the document clear in the 03
> draft, but in fact I don't see practical usage of receiving the
> optional information on TCP sockets.  If we can reach a consensus of
> leaving it unspecified (by removing the text), it's just fine.

At one level I don't have a problem with removing the 02 and 03 behavior since
no TCP applications use this.

However, I wonder what we would do if a TCP application comes around and
wants to either restrict the extension headers used on the receive side and/or
be aware of what is used.
Perhaps this is something we can only speculate given that no such
applications exist.

  Erik

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to