Re: [Anima] draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-06

Toerless Eckert wrote: >> Not at all. The RPL profile template is at: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template/ >> (yes, it's expired, never to be published) >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7733/ (section 4) >>

Re: [Anima] draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-06

Toerless Eckert wrote: > I may be wrong, but it looks to me as if MichaelRs comments and reference to > this new draft about RPL IPinIP header stuff makes it sound as if we MUST > somehow support these IPinIP headers in ACP: It's an argument that we have to have in

Re: [Anima] draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-06

[oops. resending with fixed address for pascal] Adding Pascal explicity because i may be confused about various RPL things here: I may be wrong, but it looks to me as if MichaelRs comments and reference to this new draft about RPL IPinIP header stuff makes it sound as if we MUST somehow support

Re: [Anima] draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-06

Adding Pascal explicity because i may be confused about various RPL things here: I may be wrong, but it looks to me as if MichaelRs comments and reference to this new draft about RPL IPinIP header stuff makes it sound as if we MUST somehow support these IPinIP headers in ACP:

[Anima] draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-06 (was: Re: use of RPL info security considerations and ANIMA use of RPL)

Thanks Michael A) One aside question for curiosity. The doc is stating : ...IPv6 architecture as outlined in [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or removed except by the sender or the receiver Is this actually stated anywhere in RFC2460 ? I could not find it. RFC7045 says: There was