Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Could you provide any citations on the middle box behaviors, e.g., lack of support for all of 2460? 10 points to the INT area for the cite to Heller :) "... Not just a failure to recognize such a header". Isn't this another Catch-22? If a node doesn't recognize a header, how does it know if it's standard or not? This also seems in contradiction to later guidance that unrecognized extensions may be dropped by default. A flow chart or pseudo code might be useful in Section 2.1, like "if (known && standard) { /* policy */ }" -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
