Brian, Specifying immutability as a universal requirement is too strong. Whether the field is mutable or not should be left to the definition of the use of the field (i.e. the flow setup and flow processing mechanism).
An acceptable requirement could be that by default the field is immutable. Alex Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" wrote: > ... > > => Perhaps another way to look at this, is to > > come back to basics and say that the flow label > > is part of the IPv6 header, therefore it seems > > rational to let IPv6 WG define its use. > > I don't see anything wrong with this, no other > > fields in the IPv6 header are defined by other > > groups. > > > > Not so: diffserv defined the traffic class (RFC 2474) and the ECN bits were > not even defined by a WG. > > I think that the IPv6 WG needs to define the general rules of the flow label > such as [im]mutablity but the detailed usage may be defined elsewhere. > > Brian > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
