While I agree with Brian, I simply want to add the point that a mechanism that allows a "flow label value" be selected either by the application or by the ip stack, would be quite similar to the way "port number" selection works.
Alex different than the model used for having an application choose Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > [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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
