I agree with Brian on both points. -----Original Message----- From: ext Brian E Carpenter Sent: 02/18/2011, 11:34 AM To: Pekka Savola Cc: Thomas Narten; 6man Mailing List Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.txt>
On 2011-02-18 21:55, Pekka Savola wrote: ... > > I think this document should also discuss APIs we have defined and that > relate to the protocols described in the document. A separate section > should be added on this. I'm not convinced. If the goal is to specify a working set of features to make a node interoperable on the wire, APIs are out of scope. ... > > The document is silent on Flow Label (as Brian mentioned). Rather than > silence, I might be tempted to say something at least from the current > perspective. The key point here is, "are hosts expected to randomize or > otherwise by default set a flow label"? Until we have settled on 3697bis, there is no answer to that question. I think it would be misleading to mention it. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
