Fernando, thanks, that's fine!
cheers, Ole On Sep 3, 2013, at 14:01 , Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > >
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
