For clarity, in terms of the pieces of your original note:
I consider (a), specifying the format at least to the level of requiring TLV encoding, to be a good idea.
I do not see any particular advantage in (b), allocating a code point, but I can live with it if the WG wants it.
And (c), changing the RFC 2460 mandate on error and drop handling, and replacing it with the details used in destination option bothers me. It seems to me we should have a strong reason for changing what was agreed. Also, any usage of such bits will have to allow for existing destinations, which will ignore such bits. Still, if we want to make using the extension headers easy, we should add the flag bits. But I don't know that we want to make it easy. Just possible, if we really, badly, need to do it.
Yours, Joel On 1/5/2011 5:25 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: ...
I would appreciate your response to http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg13207.html Thanks Suresh
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
