Pekka Savola <pek...@netcore.fi> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>On 2011-02-18 21:55, Pekka Savola wrote: >> >>> 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"?
This document is not the place to say that: it says _where_to_look_ for such specifications. >> Until we have settled on 3697bis, there is no answer to that question. >> I think it would be misleading to mention it. ... but it probably is reasonable to mention 3697bis as work in progress. > Section S 5.1 already has a MUST requirement for supporting RFC2460. > RFC2460 main body and appendix describe the behaviour for assigning > flows at the originating node. This was made more specific in RFC3697 > that updated 2460. Saying just-that is reasonable. > Given the situation we already have, I think it would be best to > address this point by describing what we currently have already > specified and the document requires. A warning "This behaviour is > being revised." would be sufficient to address upgrade path issues. This document should not try to be authoritative on Flow Label. We could be more specific on where-to-look, but I'm not convinced that will be helpful: where-to-look, IMHO, is 3697bis. ;^) -- John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
