> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 01:43:19PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: >> 1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in <draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt>. > > I support this option, because it seems to me that the existing draft > makes the correct point: another rh[n] could be introduced to add the > desired features without exposing the same vulnerability. Given that > the deployment so far is not extensive (compared to other things on > the Internet), it seems like this is the safest thing to do. I have > read the alternative arguments; some of them seem to me to be > reasonably good second choices, and if we had evidence of much wider > use of RH0 today, I would probably be more persuaded by those > arguments.
Ditto. Brian Dickson Afilias -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
