Bob,
Bob Hinden wrote: ...
I am not sure it is necessary to deal with an extension mechanisms at this point in time. ...
Ok, I believe this pretty much sums it up. My reading of the feedback is that (1) it probably does not make much sense to pursue a general extension mechanism at this time, and (2) there is nothing much wrong with the format we are considering.
I believe then the best course of action is to pursue that format for our use within Seamoby and MIPSHOP, and we can expect to get one ICMP Type assignment for that.
...
I did notice the absence of RFC2434 language in your draft, and I'd suggest using it for clarity and consistency with other IANA sections or documents (e.g., rfc2780).
It was my understanding that one could use the RFC2434 language, or if one wanted to do something more specific then it wasn't required. I could be wrong about this.
I'm quite sure that's the case, I hope I wasn't implying otherwise. I was just suggesting that when the desired policy actually matches one of the well-known clauses or phrases in 2434, it might be a good idea to just use that language. Just for consistency of terminology, that's all.
thanks,
-gabriel
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
