Agreed and knew that when I sent it. Sorry. I think any field that can be legitmately altered by a standard set of interoperablity specs should not be in the ICV. I can see the add value of authenticating the flow label but I have concerns over the benefit of that and performance and change to the implementations.
Why do you think this is important and what problem does it solve? thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Kent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 12:56 PM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: Francis Dupont; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: AH and flow label > > At 11:37 AM -0400 9/10/04, Bound, Jim wrote: > >Francis, > > > >The flow label should not be part of the ICV because it is > permitted to > >be rewritable enroute as long as it is delivered in tact E2E. I say > >keep as it is today. No other comment. > > > >Thanks for asking, > >/jim > Jim, > > If it is delivered with the same value as when it was sent, > then it can be included in the ICV computation. Note that the > requirement for inclusion is that a value either be immutable > OR be predictable at the receiver. So, what you indicated > above would not be a basis for excluding the flow label. > > Steve > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
