On 2018-12-06 01:16, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On Dec 4, 2018, at 8:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> Nobody deprecated the flags that require HBH options to be processed or >>> dropped if not supported. >> >> Intentionally. If a forwarding node is transparent to HbH options, >> it is not looking at those flags. If it is looking at HbH options, >> it will obey those flags. Why is that a problem? > > What exactly does ‘transparent to HbH options mean’ if not ‘not supported’?
It means a forwarding node that uses the exception added by RFC7045 and simply doesn't even look for an HbH header. The flag bits are invisible and irrelevant to such a node. The flag bits apply as defined for a forwarding node that *does* process HbH options, so they certainly should not be deprecated. Brian > > In that case, the flags have exactly no meaning anywhere. But they’re not > deprecated. > > That makes no sense at all. > > Joe > . > _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
