"Hesham Soliman (ERA)" wrote: ... > => Perhaps another way to look at this, is to > come back to basics and say that the flow label > is part of the IPv6 header, therefore it seems > rational to let IPv6 WG define its use. > I don't see anything wrong with this, no other > fields in the IPv6 header are defined by other > groups. >
Not so: diffserv defined the traffic class (RFC 2474) and the ECN bits were not even defined by a WG. I think that the IPv6 WG needs to define the general rules of the flow label such as [im]mutablity but the detailed usage may be defined elsewhere. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
