Hi James,
On 10-04-29 02:16 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
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.
Fully agree. Do you think such restriction needs to be mentioned in the
IANA considerations section of this draft?
Cheers
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
