Fred, Looking at all the discussion/arguments, I think we have consensus about not adding the proposed code point to the spec.
I agree with all others that it is not required in this spec and it is not a good idea to add this code point at this (DS) stage. Regards Mukesh > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > ext Tim Hartrick > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:12 PM > To: Fred Templin > Cc: Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG; Pekka Savola; Perry Lorier > Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-05.txt > > > > > All, > > On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 15:18, Fred Templin wrote: > > It wasn't specified, but the IPv6 layer should have reasonable > > assurance that > > the corruption occurred beyond the end of the header before sending > > ICMPs. > > > > It is hard to imagine the IESG allowing functionality this speculative > to arrive in a specification that is recycling at DS. And for good > reason. There is no chance that any functionality like this could get > implementation reports sufficient to qualify for DS within three IETFs > let alone within a couple of days or weeks. > > This work doesn't belong in this specification. It may not belong > anywhere because of the issues cited by Perry. > > > > Tim Hartrick > Mentat Inc. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
