Le 27/04/2010 23:33, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 2010-04-28 03:09, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Brian,
On 10-04-27 12:01 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-04-27 11:21, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Whether it is an extension header currently defined or an
upper-layer protocol (current or future), this format does not
apply. It is a generic mechanism that future extension headers
could voluntarily use to become middlebox friendly and to save
protocol numbers.
Understood, but I am wondering whether the shim6 extension header
needs to be added to the above list of exceptions.
I am fine with adding the shim6,AH, and ESP into the exception
list. Do you think that this exception list is useful?
I think it is useful guidance for implementors, if and only if it's
complete. If anything is missed out, it could be misleading.
I agree too.
Often during protocol design one needs to have all similar things
in one place, instead of spread out in various RFCs, e.g.: list of users
of HbH, list of possible flow label uses, etc.
It's good to list in one place all existing Extension Headers: we're
thus sure to not leave out some exception when trying to generalize into
exthdr.
Alex
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
