Hi, Brian, I've read the document and I'm happy with this rev. Some minor comments:
* Section 4 says: > 2. A node that forwards a flow whose flow label value in arriving > packets is zero MAY set the flow label value. In that case, it > is RECOMMENDED that the forwarding node sets the flow label field > for a flow to a pseudo-random value. While I know this is the intention of the text, I'd clarify that if they rewrite a zero flow-label, they should do so consistently (i.e., all packets of a given flow are rewritten with the same FlowLabel value). * Section 4 says: > 2. A network domain MUST NOT forward packets outside the domain > whose flow label values are other than zero or pseudo-random. Although I don't feel strongly about what I'm going to say, maybe s/MUST NOT/SHOULD NOT"? Strictly speaking, the FL is an optimization, and is not expected to cause interoperability issues.... Thanks! Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
