On 17 Nov 2010, at 19:09 , Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote: > But what is the main cause to reject this I-D?
I am very very sorry, but if the issues aren't clear by now, with so many explanations from so many people, then I really don't know how to help one understand. > There are no real disadvantage... Untrue, see list discussion for several issues. To pick an arbitrary note from earlier today, see Joel H's note about how the current I-D violates RFC-2460... > and no overhead but opens the possibility to use the vanilla > extension header mechanism. We already have vanilla mechanisms in the IPv6 Destination Options and IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options headers. We should use them. I've already said that if folks want to define a header for the entirely theoretical case that a new extension has NEITHER the Hop-by-Hop NOR the end-to-end property, then that proposed header and specification needs to be extremely narrowly scoped -- and that specification MUST require use of the existing two headers if they can *in any way* be used instead. (I really hope we can stop looping, and instead move on to discuss what a path forward might look like. :-) Yours, Ran -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
