James,
I disagree. Aside from the advice that you quote below, the draft does two
things:
- It admits that there is an operational problem
- It instructs the IETF not to make the problem worse by standardizing yet more
applications that rely upon fragmentation.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> james woodyatt
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:07 PM
> To: IPv6 Maintanence
> Subject: Re: "Deprecate"
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 01:34 , Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > --- Therefore, if a legacy protocol is capable of breaking its
> dependence on IPv6 fragmentation, it should consider doing so.
>
> As I read this latest message, it would appear that this sentence I
> quoted above is the only remaining thing the draft will actually be
> telling people in my position to do with legacy host stack
> implementations.
>
> How to say this politely? I think this recommendation is, at best...
> unnecessary.
>
>
> --
> james woodyatt <[email protected]>
> core os networking
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
