Dear colleagues,
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 01:43:19PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in <draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt>.
I support this option, because it seems to me that the existing draft
makes the correct point: another rh[n] could be introduced to add the
desired features without exposing the same vulnerability. Given that
the deployment so far is not extensive (compared to other things on
the Internet), it seems like this is the safest thing to do. I have
read the alternative arguments; some of them seem to me to be
reasonably good second choices, and if we had evidence of much wider
use of RH0 today, I would probably be more persuaded by those
arguments.
Best regards,
Andrew
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x4110
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
