Thanks and good response. The rationale will be important for product explanation too. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Kent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:54 PM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: Francis Dupont; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: AH and flow label > > At 2:49 PM -0400 9/10/04, Bound, Jim wrote: > >Agreed and knew that when I sent it. Sorry. I think any field that > >can be legitmately altered by a standard set of > interoperablity specs > >should not be in the ICV. I can see the add value of authenticating > >the flow label but I have concerns over the benefit of that and > >performance and change to the implementations. > > > >Why do you think this is important and what problem does it solve? > > > >thanks > >/jim > > I don't necessarily think it is important, but we either have > to change the processing description or change the rationale > for why we omit it from the ICV, since the current rationale is wrong. > > BTW, I don't think there would be a noticeable performance > issue if it were included. Unfortunately, AH is slow because > of the need to skip over selected fields already, so this is > adding to that pain, but probably not by much :-) > > Steve > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
