>>> As noted, I'm open to any of the two options. That said, would a >>> normative ref to draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit be really appropriate/correct? >>> >>> If you think about it, that'd be an "informational reference" rather >>> than an authoritative one... (you don't need to read >>> draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit to understand >>> draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-05.txt). For instance, the IANA >>> registry itself is not a normative reference. >> >> Logically, you're correct. It would just be a shame for it to come out >> as a "work in progress" reference instead of an RFC. Maybe we can ask for >> the two RFCs to be published at the same time. > > Agreed. I will rev the I-D as described (but with an informational ref > to your I-D), and will note the RFC-Ed about this. -- However, my take > is that this will be nevertheless the case (draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit > will be published at the same time or before oversized-header-chain).
I would prefer a normative reference to the ext-transmit document for the definition of extension headers. I agree that we should publish these two documents together. cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
