On 24 May 2013, at 21:50, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25/05/2013 02:43, Tim Chown wrote: > >> A couple of additional comments. >> >> One is that from time to time there may be security issues raised with >> certain headers, e.g. RH0. These may obviously be raised over time. Is there >> a mechanism to catch these in the IANA registry somehow? > > Shouldn't this just be part of the Security Comsiderations for > the definition of each header? The registry will always contain a pointer > to the relevant RFCs. IANA can't do much if the Security Considerations > are insufficient.
Fair enough. It was just a question as to how it can be made as easy as possible for a developer to catch all the latest requirements/specs. >> Another is whether there is any use of the "null" header type 59? Or has >> that been deprecated? If not, should it be so, given Brian doesn't list it. >> Or is this viewed in the same category as TCP, etc as header types? > > I think we included that in an earlier draft, but then removed it > because it appears to function as a null transport header. It's > a judgment call, and only needs a few keystrokes to put it back in the > list. OK, I have no strong preference, but you could maybe state in the draft that it is excluded and why, so readers don't wonder about it. Overall I think the draft is in good shape, and the tweaks based on Ray's comments should make it even better. Tim > > Brian > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
