On 14/12/2010 10:08 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> as a 6MAN WG document. > > Yes and no. > > I believe the material is valuable and should be adopted in some way > by 6man. However > > (a) The lack of negative reactions to draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-00, > which we did adopt after Beijing, suggests that we'll be doing > an RFC3697bis reasonably soon. At a minimum, draft-gont needs > revision in parallel with that.
Yep. This was implicit. :-) > (b) At the moment draft-gont mixes two things: a "Security Assessment > of the IPv6 Flow Label" as stated in its title, and a normative > recommendation on how to generate a pseudo-random flow label. I wonder > whether the latter part doesn't actually belong in RFC3697bis? I guess that is among the possible options. There may be arguments for keeping this stuff in this I-D, or to move it into RFC3697. I'm open to the many possibilities.... Thanks, -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
