> No, I don't agree that we can leave the vagueness in 2460. IMNSHO we > should either accept the rewording we've hammered out (which carefully > doesn't say anything about QOS) or change it to MBZ.
I'm fine with the new wording - I'm just not fine with the assumption that we have any idea what to do with the static info > If A is a customer of ISP X in some distant country, there might be (and > I am only saying might be) an SLA in place that says "whenever you get > a packet from or to A, with 1234 in its flow label, give it such a level > of service." > > I'm not saying that this is especially likely or plausible, but it > certainly isn't impossible. scales well :-) Scott -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
