> fair enough, though having some documented (at least in email) > reasoning that "Oh, a new HBH will be cool!" is bad, certainly isn't > bad, right?
Well, it's been documented before in email, and I have little hope that documenting it again in email will be remembered six months from now. :) Perhaps we should take: The case against Hop-by-Hop options draft-krishnan-ipv6-hopbyhop-05 And turn it into (if it doesn't do this enough already) a list of all the reasons why HBH is problematical, and then suggest that anyone proposing a HBH in the future include a checklist of how the HBH approach is still compelling given all the issues listed in the doc. But I don't think we need a protocol statement banning HBH. The reasons they are problematical should speak for themselves. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------