On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Thomas Narten wrote: > > or even strongly cautions against using extension headers. > > Why? If someone later comes up with a problem, and extension headers > (despite any drawbacks w.r.t. deployed code) seem like the best > answer, we can have a conversation about the pros and cons then.
When some other WG designs a solution like this, they are not going to ask IPv6 WG and not necessarily even any IPv6 expert on guidance for this, because they don't think they're designing an extension header -- rather a new IP protocol which just happens to support (or be extended to support) Next Header types other than IPPROTO_NONE. We can always push back at IETF last call or IESG review, but without having a backing of an IETF consensus document to say "you really shouldn't be doing this unless you have very good reasons for it" would be helpful in that dialogue. It'd be even more helpful because folks could be pointed to it (or could find it themselves) before the issue even arose at the end of the process (when it's usually much too late to fix it in any case). (FWIW I'd like to see a similar consensus document on Router Alert option..) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
