Hi, I'm not hearing much in response to the open issue:
Should we delete most of the text concerning stateful methods of handling the flow label? In fact I'm not hearing much at all. Should I ask the WG Chairs to conclude that everybody is OK with these drafts? That would save us some time in Prague... Regards Brian On 2011-02-26 10:42, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi, > > There are three updated flow label drafts: > > 1. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-01.txt > > This is the draft of the updated proposed standard for the flow label. > The open issues discussed for the previous draft have been closed > according to comments received - see the attached file for details. > The authors believe that there is one big issue remaining: > > Should we delete most of the text concerning stateful methods > of handling the flow label? Basically that would mean deleting > Section 4 (and corresponding parts of the Security Considerations) > and making minor text adjustments elsewhere. > > This would not mean that stateful methods are excluded for ever - it > would just recognise that we are only sure of the stateless approach > today. > > 2. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-03.txt > > This draft is background rationale for the previous one, with minor > updates to keep it in synch. > > 3. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-01.txt > > This is the ECMP/LAG draft updated according to WG Last Call comments. > > Brian + co-authors > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
