Brian,
I tend to agree.
Maybe we could leave the draft alone and put something in the Shepherd's
write-up reminding the IESG that this draft relies upon
draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit progressing first.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 9:29 PM
> To: Fernando Gont
> Cc: 6man
> Subject: Re: Definition of Extension Header in draft-ietf-6man-
> oversized-header-chain-05.txt (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-
> oversized-header-chain-05.txt)
>
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
