Hi, This is intended to reflect the various comments made in Beijing, notably strengthening the points about the flow label not being changed en route. Please review - if the WG is generally OK with this version, we'll start to think about RFC3697bis.
Brian + Sheng + Shane -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-00.txt Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:00:02 -0800 From: [email protected] Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF. Title : Update to the IPv6 flow label specification Author(s) : S. Amante, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-00.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2010-12-02 Various published proposals for use of the IPv6 flow label are incompatible with its existing specification in RFC 3697. Furthermore, very little practical use is made of the flow label, partly due to some uncertainties about the correct interpretation of the specification. This document proposes changes to the specification in order to clarify it, making it clear what types of usage are possible, and to introduce some additional flexibility. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-00.txt -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
