>> see the text carefully. (1) says "deprecate *RH0*", (2) says
>> "restrict the usage of *RH0*". it is not about RHx. will your
>> choice change because of this?
>
>I am quite aware that choice 1 is Deprecate RH0 and choice 2 is restrict
>usage of RH0, and neither relates to RHx.
>
>I think maybe you are missing my point. It relates to a more general
>discussion of source routing and feature parity in IPv4 and IPv6. If you
(snip)
ok, i assume you have not seen this. http://www.natisbad.org/.
the key topic being discussed here with the draft is URGENT need to
publish the deprecation/restriction of RH0.
please refrain from generalizing the problem, until RH0 RFC goes
out of the door. we can handle your generic opinions about the
source routing in general some other time.
again, it is about rather serious security problem, which risked
the DNS root name servers. it's quite serious and really urgent.
the RFC publication should have finished way earlier.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
