Hi, Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Folks, > We have resolved all the issues raised during the last IETF meeting > in the latest version of this draft. We would like the people who had > issues with the earlier versions of this draft to check if they are OK > with the changes. The latest version of the draft is available at > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-06.txt First, a typo: > 4. Exceptions > > The the Generic IPv6 extension header is generic enough that it is ^^^^^^^ Then, a comment: This is version 6 of the draft but I only found a single comment in the mailing list archive so my question below may already have been done during a meeting or privately. Instead of creating a new specific header type and a specific registry for new allocations, I wonder if it would not be easier (for everyone, AFAICT) to just consider: - *currently* existing headers : implementations will have to cope with those ones. - future header: force those to be in the common TLV format (1-byte NH, 1-byte Length, Data) In the end, instead of defining "An uniform format for IPv6 extensions headers" using a new specific type, wouldn't it be easier to just force future definitions of extension headers to follow the common layout proposed below. What were the arguments raised privately or during meetings not to follow that path? Cheers, a+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
