On Apr 16, 2010, at 02:44, Rémi Després wrote:
> 
> I don't know exactly what the status of draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 is 
> today, but it this proposal has IMHO to become quickly a standard-track RFC:

The draft was presented most recently at IETF-72 Dublin.

>From the minutes <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/minutes?item=minutes72.html>:
>> 
>>        Extension Headers, Suresh Krishnan
>>           ==================================
>>           Document: draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-03.txt
>>           Slides: Extension Headers, 6man-6.pdf
>>           
>>           Suresh reported on the update to the extension headers draft.
>>           He addressed all comments received except for the "who is
>>           going to use extension headers?" comment. The point of this
>>           document is "if you use them, this is how you do it". A number
>>           of issues were addressed in the update. The remaining open
>>           issue is backwards compatibility. Extension headers may alter
>>           processing. A packet cannot be processed by older
>>           implementations that don't understand the extension header.
>>           The standard approach for dealing with this issue is
>>           recommending that implementations do not process
>>           unrecognized extension headers. There was a question about
>>           who is responsible for the IPv6 API?  It is currently an
>>           informational RFC. It falls within the domain of the POSIX
>>           standards community, but they have not taken it up yet. We can
>>           only give recommendations to the POXIX community. Brian
>>           Haberman concluded the discussion by asking Suresh to revise
>>           the document and ask the mailing list for consensus.

[continuing quote from Rémi]
> 
> - The ability of skipping an extension header in a node that doesn't know it 
> is clearly needed. 
> - This need should have been satisfied in the original IPv6 specification.

I was present in the room for the discussion.  I don't think the audience 
recognized as clear a need for this draft as the nominal authors did.  The 
meeting adjourned moments later without the working group taking up the draft 
as a work item.


--
james woodyatt <j...@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to