On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 10:00 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote: > 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).
It seems strange to me that we define "IPv6 Extension Headers", then refuse to allow any further extensions! That was largely the point and purpose of the exercise. That said, it is always "highly undesirable" to make changes to a deployed protocol UNLESS the changes can safely be ignored. It will depend on the function of any future extension headers as to whether they will be able to be safely ignored. On the other hand, if an extension is needed, then it is needed, and the community will have to make the tradeoff between the undesirability of a change and the desirability of a new feature. This draft means that if an application runs into headers it does not understand, then at least it can skip them neatly. If *skipping* them causes problems, then at least the authors *should have* been aware that new extension headers might come along, and *should have* planned for that in some way. Hm, I think I might just have used more words to say what you said :-) Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer ([email protected]) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687 Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
