> fair enough, though having some documented (at least in email)
> reasoning that "Oh, a new HBH will be cool!" is bad, certainly isn't
> bad, right?
Well, it's been documented before in email, and I have little hope
that documenting it again in email will be remembered six months from
now. :)
Perhaps we should take:
The case against Hop-by-Hop options
draft-krishnan-ipv6-hopbyhop-05
And turn it into (if it doesn't do this enough already) a list of all
the reasons why HBH is problematical, and then suggest that anyone
proposing a HBH in the future include a checklist of how the HBH
approach is still compelling given all the issues listed in the doc.
But I don't think we need a protocol statement banning HBH. The
reasons they are problematical should speak for themselves.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
