However, I still think the MUST not be changed
statement may limit its future potential. For instance what if the
signaling used explicitly indicated that the field could be changed or not
changed en-route. This seems to handle the case when applications
would want the label to change or not.
-----Original Message-----
From: Morrow, Glenn [RICH2:C330:EXCH]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: New WG flow label draft (-01)This looks very good and informative. Thank You.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: New WG flow label draft (-01)
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We had some face-to-face time on Tuesday, which resulted into
> a new revision of the flow label draft. The presentation on
> Thursday will be based on this.
>
> Jarno
>
> <<draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-01.txt>>
>
>
