On 2010-08-18 02:39, Steven Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:06:23 -0500, "George, Wes E [NTK]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce-02 is expired and I haven't heard much
>> effort to push it forward again. IMO it would be more helpful to
> consider
>> security implications and evaluate your solution with
>> draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03,
>> draft-donley-6man-flowlabel-transport-sig-00, etc in mind. I believe
> that
>> it should integrate well, but I'd rather see a draft revision that takes
>> this explicitly into consideration.
>
> I won't be revising my draft until some consensus emerges on the use of
> the flow label.
Fair enough. As for draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update, the authors are still
mulling over what to do next. As noted in my immediatly previous message,
my personal inclination is towards the most simple approach possible.
I find draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security very helpful to be going on with.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
