Hi James, Using the experimental status seems to me confusing (and why two numbers instead of one?)
If the draft becomes a standard-track RFC, as originally proposed but so far insufficiently supported, we will have all what is needed, simply an cleanly. I hope this can happen. Regards, RD Le 20 avr. 2010 à 18:25, james woodyatt a écrit : > On Apr 20, 2010, at 06:52, Rémi Després wrote: >> >> Waiting for this new extension header to be found useful would be IMHO a >> DESIGN MISTAKE: if and when such an extension is found useful, it will be >> too late because ALL codes that look for ports will need to be upgraded >> before deployment of the new extension. > > I think this argues that we should position I-D.krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as an > update to RFC 3692 and instruct IANA to reserve two additional numbers for > experimental IPv6 extension headers, which we then require to be formatted > accordingly, and which we also permit nodes to silently ignore if they do not > support processing them. > > The general problem of distinguishing extension headers from upper-layer > transports by a programmatic method is, I suspect, not worth the trouble that > would surely be involved in solving it. > > > -- > james woodyatt <[email protected]> > member of technical staff, communications engineering > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
