Dear IPv6 WG Chairs,
I previously sent this mail to the list at the time of the wg meeting in Paris
but there was no response. Has any decision been taken on how to move forward
with the IPv6 suite going towards full standard? I believe these items should
be looked at before RFC2460 goes forward.
==================================================
Resent message from 2 August 2005:
In the course of doing the security overview draft in v6ops, we identified a
number of issues that appear to be errata or issues with the main IPv6 standard.
These should potentially be fixed up as 2460 goes to full standard:
Points for full standard;
• (non-)Processing of Type 0 routing headers in hosts
• (non-)Processing of Type 2 routing headers in routers
• Processing Extension Headers in Middleboxes -
o words about where headers are inspected need to be relaxed
o words about processing headers out of order need to be relaxed
o should intermediate nodes be allowed to discard packets with unknown
extension headers?
• Requiring that new extension headers use TLV format (and maybe putting
the length into the fragmentation header) - to simplify skipping headers
in middleboxes
• Constraining new hop-by-hop options both as to number and function -
h-by-h should be designed either for simple fast path processing (like
jumbo packets) or to explicitly cause a packet to be dumped to the slow
path (like router alert).
• Fragment reassembly algorithm - should explicitly forbid overlapped
fragments and possibly require that non-final fragments are (say) at
least 1024 bytes.
Regards,
Elwyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
