Hi Bert,
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> If this draft wants to bypass that rule:
>> The goal of the draft is not to make any recommendations to either
>> receiving end nodes or intermediate nodes. The goal of the
>> draft is to
>> propose a standard extension header format. That's it. Period. If you
>> found any text in the draft that suggests some action on the nodes, I
>> can remove it (Please point it out to me). It was not my intention to
>> specify any skip/drop behavior on the nodes.
>
> I understand what you are saying. But my point is that it was
> specifically this lack of explicit limits on who may safely "skip over"
> any EH that made my knee jerk. It's almost like the draft conflicts with
> RFC 2460, or at least seems to PERMIT such a conflict to occur.
I do see what you mean. Is this the text you were referring to that made
you uncomfortable?
" This document proposes that all IPv6 extension headers be encoded in
a consistent TLV format so that it is possible for nodes to skip over
unknown extension headers and continue to further process the header
chain."
If I add the word intermediate in the text in order to read
" This document proposes that all IPv6 extension headers be encoded in
a consistent TLV format so that it is possible for intermediate nodes
to skip over unknown extension headers and continue to further
process the header chain."
would this make it more palatable for you?
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
