On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 5 janv. 2011 à 21:15, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : >> On 2011-01-06 02:15, RJ Atkinson wrote: >> ... >>> Prohibiting new IPv6 Extension Headers outright, >>> ... >> My reaction is that this is going too far, > > +1
I agree with this. I dont think we should be explicitly prohibiting any new IPv6 extension headers. We could discourage the use of the same, but prohibiting is taking it to a new, and rather an unreasonable level. > >> ... >> So I am more inclined to a SHOULD NOT approach; I think I'm agreeing >> with a somewhat stronger version of Suresh's proposed paragraph. >> At least, add >> >> ...accompanied by ... and a convincing explanation of a successful >> progressive deployment model for the proposed new header. > > This seems to me a good compromise. > +1 Yes, i agree with this as well. We should at the very least document what a new IPv6 extension header must look like, with some text that says that this should only be used once the working group has been convinced that it cannot use the existing IPv6 extension headers for the job. I am ambivalent on the options that have been added. I also agree that using a new protocol ID perhaps is not required. Kam -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
