On 09/03/2013 08:22 AM, Ole Troan wrote: >>> >>> I would prefer a normative reference to the ext-transmit >>> document for the definition of extension headers. >> >> I have no problem with that option... However, the thing is that >> the reference is not normative in nature (i.e., IMHO it would be >> incorrect, as discussed with Brian). (please see the P.S., >> anyway). > > 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. > > I'm fine with this text. I think the separation of extension > headers and ULPs that ext-transmit codifies is vital for > implementing oversized-header chain. > > could there be a reference to ext-transmit also in the terminology > section?
The above para is meant for the Terminology section. >> P.S.: Please do let me know if you'd like me to proceed with a >> normative ref... either way is fine with me... > > let's go with normative. Ok. Please let me know if we're fine with the above change (para that goes in the Terminology section + normative reference) and I'll rev the I-D. Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
