> > 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 agree to this. I think there is value in specifying a format that all subsequent extension headers MUST use. Cheers, Manav > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
