> ISSUE 7. Section 5 says: > > To enable applications and transport protocols to define what packets > constitute a flow, the source node MUST provide means for the > applications and transport protocols to specify the Flow Label values > to be used with their flows. The use of the means to specify Flow > Label values is subject to appropriate privileges (see Section 6.1). > The source node SHOULD be able to select unused Flow Label values for > flows not requesting a specific value to be used. > > As noted above, in stateless load distribution, occasional duplicate labels > surely don't matter. Also, experience suggests that applications and > transport protocols are unlikely to do any of this, and it isn't > a protocol design issue anyway. > > QUESTION: Should we reduce this whole paragraph to a SHOULD or MAY, or even > remove it as out of scope in a protocol spec?
OK for deletion. See also response to Open issues 1 & 2. IMO the pseudo-random mandate makes the above text irrelevant. > > -------------- > ISSUE 8. Section 6.1 says: > > Only applications with an appropriate privilege in a sending host > will be entitled to set a non-zero Flow Label. Mechanisms for this > are operating system dependent. Related policy and authorization > mechanisms may also be required; for example, in a multi-user host, > only some users may be entitled to set the Flow Label. Such > authorization issues are outside the scope of this specification. > > QUESTION: Should this be removed as speculative and out of scope in a > protocol spec? > Ditto. Jarno -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
