On 21/02/2013 15:30, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Feb 21, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I suggest that the draft should focus only on describing the operational >> issues with as much precision as possible. It's only the last paragraph >> of section 3 and the brief section 4 that will be controversial, and >> as always it's best to start with the facts, all the facts, before >> reaching conclusions. >> > > Yup. The conclusion isn't (yet!) "Long headers are hard, let's just deprecate > them" -- the draft is intended to explain the problems, start discussions and > make folk aware of the fact that a number of folk are dropping these sorts of > packets. > > The last parts of the draft are there for a few reasons: > 1: Drafts that simply say "Here is an issue" without bothering to propose any > sort of solution always feels (to me at least) as though the authors haven't > bothered and are expecting someone else to solve all their issues for them….
Sure, but a proposal that removes a major part of the design of IPv6 simply can't fly right out of the box (excuse my metaphor). ... > b: hardware vendors should simply solve the architectural / performance > issues -- this required too much pixie dust. It also doesn't solve the issue > of already deployed boxes. I suspect that there are solutions that don't need pixie dust, but which do require product redesign, and the IETF often enough calls for product redesign. Anyway... I do think that discussion is premature. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
