And, truth in advertising, we have heard two dissenting views: a) that the field should be defined as MUST BE ZERO, i.e. the MAY clause below gets deleted
b) that the 3rd MUST should be SHOULD, i.e. immutability should be default instead of mandatory. Brian Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Hi George, > > Yes, we are "humming" in agreement to the proposal that we > replace section 6 of RFC 2460 with the following text: > > > The 20-bit Flow Label field in the IPv6 header MAY be set by a > > source to label sets of packets. Nodes that do not support > > the Flow Label field MUST set the field to zero when originating a > > packet, and MUST ignore the field when receiving a packet. All routers > > MUST pass the field on unchanged when forwarding a packet. > > > > This specification does not further define the meaning of the > > Flow Label. > > > > And that we delete Appendix A from RFC 2460. > > Actually, we probably won't update RFC 2460. We'll probably > just publish a separate RFC that updates 2460. > > Margaret > > At 02:01 PM 1/3/02 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Just a quick question from an interested lurker: Are these hums of > >acquiescence in response, specifically, to the idea that an originating > >node may set the flow label to any value, and that nodes forwarding > >packets will leave that value alone? -- George Mitchell > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
