Hello,
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:14:36 -0400, Suresh Krishnan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
Some comments:
* If I understand correctly, this now proposes to merge all future new IPv6
options into a single header type. Is it implicitly assumed that hop-by-hop
options will be deprecated completely? If not, won't this adversely affect
routers that will have to parse all GIEH packets on the slow path? If yes,
should this not mention it or refer to any appropriate hop-by-hop
deprecation document?
* I realize this is Work In Progress, but option formatting guidelines (as
RFC2460 has) would probably make sense.
* I am suspicious about "blaming" the Fragment Header in the document. As
far as I know, the fragment header cannot be extended (and it cannot be
deprecated/replaced either), so it should be a non-issue in this context.
* Routing Header seems to be in a similar situation. If I understand the
"problem", only Dst header and HbH header are "broken", no?
Regards,
--
Rémi Denis-Courmont
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
