[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >We certainly shouldn't *require* apps to make a decision, but (see my > >previous message) we must make it possible for them. Therefore, > >the API must provide an option for the sender to set the value. > > the problem is, we need to provide a way for apps to pick a non- > conflicting value to do that, and it gets very messy. that is the > reason why my draft does not provide ways for apps to pick the value.
That is unavoidable, and not so messy if the current draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label is followed (IMHO). Brian > > >In any case, > >draft-itojun-ipv6-flowlabel-api-01.txt will have to be reviewed after we > >reach consensus on draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label > > yes, that is why it is expired state. > > itojun -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
