On 30th June 2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
> This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:
>
> Title : An uniform format for IPv6 extension headers
> Author(s) : Suresh Krishnan
> Erik Kline
> James Hoagland
> Manav Bhatia
> Filename : draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-03.txt
> Pages : 8
> Date : 2011-06-27
>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-03
>
>
> as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments and statements of support
> for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list.
> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. This last call
> will end on 14 July 2011.
I support publishing this as a Proposed Standard.
This revision resolves my earlier concerns that it is
highly undesirable to define *any* new IPv6 Extension Headers
(since defining any new IPv6 Extension Header will break
multiple existing IPv6 deployments).
On 1st July 2011, David Malone wrote, in part:
> Fixing this could be a simple as changing the title and abstract,
> plus possibly adding something in Section 4 to actually encourage
> use of the uniform format.
I do not have any philosophical objections to the suggested
edit of the document Title and expansion of the Abstract.
Perhaps the lone sentence in Section 4 could be reworded
into RFC-2119 language. Candidate replacement text might be:
If any IPv6 Extension Headers are defined in future,
keeping in mind the restrictions above in Section 3
and also the restrictions specified in RFC-2460,
they MUST use the consistent format defined in Figure 1.
This enables future IPv6 implementations to skip over
unknown IPv6 Extension Headers and continue to further
process the IPv6 header chain.
Yours,
Ran
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
