Hi Fernando, I'm biased, but I'd prefer the reference (your first suggestion), unless the ext-transmit draft gets stuck in the process, in which case you could make an editorial change later, even up to AUTH48.
BTW check the IANA URL too; I think you had a pointer to a .txt file, but these days IANA is .xml based. Regards Brian On 01/09/2013 08:50, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 08/31/2013 04:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> 3. Terminology >>> >>> For the purposes of this document, the terms Extension Header, Header >>> Chain, First Fragment, and Upper-layer Header are used as follows: >>> >>> Extension Header: >>> >>> Extension Headers are defined in Section 4 of [RFC2460]. >>> [IANA-PROTO] provides a list of assigned Internet Protocol Numbers >>> and designates which of those protocol numbers also represent >>> extension headers. >> The final clause is totally incorrect - the IANA list does not (today) >> identify extension headers. draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit has the details >> in its IANA Considerations. >> >> Assuming draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit is approved, this will change, >> but for that purpose you'd need a blocking (normative) reference >> to draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit to guarantee the correct sequence of >> publication. > > I thought that's what we were intending (assuming > draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit goes smoothly) -- but I realize we missed > the procedural piece of making sure of the correct sequence of > publication. So I guess possible paths are: > > 1) Changing the above paragraph to something along the lines of: > > Extension Headers are defined in Section 4 of [RFC2460]. > As a result of [draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit], [IANA-PROTO] provides > a list of assigned Internet Protocol Numbers and designates which of > those protocol numbers also represent extension headers. > > (or something along these lines... please suggest alternative phrasing > if deemed appropriate) > > 2) Change the above paragraph to: > > Extension Headers are defined in Section 4 of [RFC2460], and various > extension headers have been specified in [RFC2460] itself and in > other later documents. > > (which IMO would still be fine, since we don't really need to provide > the full list here) > > Thoughts? > > Thanks! > > Cheers, -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
