Personally, I am happy enough as long as you limit it to IPv4, and
state that
a similar practise SHOULD NOT be adopted for IPv6. I'd also
appreciate if the
first document would include some of the architectural considerations
that we've
came up during this discussion.
--Pekka Nikander
I haven't heard anything on this thread for a few days. So I will
assume that one of the following statements is true:
- we have reached consensus on the proposal below
- we haven't reached consensus, but people don't object strongly
enough to speak up
So, if I don't hear anything in the next few days I will assume
that we have reached consensus, split the draft into two parts and
submit them both.
Ron
So, I would like to propose the following:
We split draft-ietf-mpls-icmp into two drafts. The first draft
describes a syntactic mechanism for extending ICMP messages. It
talks about the new length attribute, a common header and a common
object header. However, it doesn't define any objects. The
Internet Area owns this draft and it is intended for publication
as PS.
The second draft references the first and will describes the MPLS
Stack Entry Object. The MPLS WG owns this draft and it is intended
for publication as INFORMATIONAL. It contains an architectural
statement explaining that layer 2 information is not included in
ICMP messages, but MPLS information is allowed in order to be
internally consistent with the otherwise intermingled relationship
between MPLS and IP.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
