> -----Original Message-----
> From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> BTW, a lot of people on this thread (not including Brian's
> email above) seem to implicitly
> imply that the flow label will be modified without
> being put back to its original value. I wonder if
> the intention here is to break existing specs or are people
> forgetting that we already mandate that such scenario is not
> allowed?
Perhaps this happens because RFC 2402 says that the IPv6 flow label is mutable (in
para. 3.3.3.1.2.1). But RFC 2460 seems to disagree in terms of current use (as of
1998), in Appendix A, even though in Section 6 the words allow for any sort of change
in the future use of this field ("subject to change").
However, if this flow label is to be included in the ICV, as long as the flow label is
returned to its original value before header verification at the destination side (be
it tunnel or transport mode), all should be fine.
Unless the wg has resolved that the flow label is absolutely *not* still "subject to
change," what's the urgency to get it included in the ICV? Are we lacking for fields
included in the ICV? Do we just need words to justify its non-inclusion?
Bert
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
