A message from your AD... First, I would like to encourage the group to make a timely decision on this issue, fix the specifications, and move on. Not because this particular issue is somehow bigger or more crucial than others (it isn't). But because we need to deal with fixing bugs and security vulnerabilities from our specifications in a timely manner so that corrections actually end up in RFCs rather than staying in the folklore of the Internet community for years :-)
And I would like to move on also because I know there are other issues and bugs we need to deal with in this WG and elsewhere. We will treat them with the same careful, analytic approach to figure out if there really is an issue and what the best way to deal with it is. We are not affected by bloated claims of how bad an issue is, but neither are we neglecting our duty to correct an error if we see one. Let me also remind people that we are here to make standards for the Internet, things that go into all hosts and routers. Consenting parties can go beyond these standards or choose to implement additional standardized features. But we need to be careful about how much we require from a general Internet node, and be clear about how widely a feature (or a fixed feature in this case) is expected to be used when we make a decision about it. Finally, as someone who has personally allocated a new RH type number (2) for his spec, I can say that the experience was generally pleasant and can be recommended for others -- nothing to be afraid of if there is a need for it. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
