Hi Thomas, On 11-02-04 10:29 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
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.
I wrote this because of a frustrating implementation experience I had. I periodically republish this draft to serve as a reminder to people but I have not put any real effort into this for a few years. I would appreciate any help you and Chris could give to set a more positive direction for this.
But I don't think we need a protocol statement banning HBH. The reasons they are problematical should speak for themselves.
+1. Thanks Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
