Thomas Narten wrote: > > > It's a matter of interpretation (you could ask the same question > > about some ways of using the flow label for diffserv > > classification). > > It would be far better if different readers didn't have to think too > hard about this. General comment. IMO, what is needed is a very short > and simple specification that says exactly what hosts (and routers) > are supposed to implement today. And *nothing* more.
That is what it is supposed to be. I'm particularly concerned that people building hardware classifiers should know what to do. > In particular, no > weasle wording that requires laywerish reading of the text to decide > what the intent is or what may or may not be allowed in the future. It is not supposed to be weasel words. It's supposed to be a minimal set of conditions. Personally, I was quite happy with the -02 version, but I don't think any of the recent changes are harmful. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
