On Mar 12, 2008, at 06:38, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > Change "transport layer header" to "upper layer header" because
I agree with that recommendation. > 2. I and Wes don't agree at all with bullet 2 in section 4 (Future > work) > of this draft that says: > > [Extension headers must be processed in any order they appear] I agree with that recommendation too. > 3. RFC 2460 clearly says in section 4 that EH's are not processed by > intermediate nodes unless the EH is a hop-by-hop EH. Since your draft > ignores this rule of RFC 2460, ... I don't agree with this. It may have informative text that seems a bit more cavalier than necessary, but that can be fixed prior to last call. It does not define any new types of extension header. Assuming your previous criticisms are addressed properly, then it will define any new extension header processing requirements either. > ...it's up to the IPv6 community to first agree to such a change to > RFC 2460 before looking at your draft. I don't think the intent is to define any changes to current requirements for processing extension headers. The idea is to define a minimal set of new requirements for defining extension headers, for the purpose of allowing packet analyzers to identify unambiguously the upper layer header type of IPv6 datagrams containing any and all extension headers that may be defined in the future. -- james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> member of technical staff, communications engineering -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
