On Apr 26, 2010, at 06:17, Brian Haberman wrote: > > The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on adopting > draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your comments/opinions > to the mailing list (or the chairs) by May 7, 2010.
I don't object to 6MAN taking up this draft as a working group item, but I'd like to add to my comments on an earlier thread. I wrote: >> >> I'd say there are two changes we should make to Section 6, IANA >> Considerations, in the next revision: >> >> + instruct IANA to reserve GIEH sub-type values for experimental purposes >> and cite RFC 3692. >> >> + instruct IANA to require a *separate* IETF standards action to allow [new] >> IPv6 extension headers to be numbered from the assigned protocol number >> database *before* assigning any such numbers to a new extension header. If 6MAN takes this as a work item, then I think it will be a pointless exercise without considering the second item in my list. When this document goes to publication, we want to make it very clear that we're setting a standard that *all* new extension headers will use the GIEH format unless and until we ever set a new standard that allows for exceptions to be published. If we don't do that, then the value of having the GIEH is lost. I may have some other improvements to propose once this becomes a working group draft. -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
