Earlier, Hing-Kam Lam wrote: > I thought we were very close to the WG LC last time and > the new version is addressing all the points raised.
Unfortunately, the new version unfortunately does not address my comments, or those of others with similar concerns about the operational impacts of ANY new IPv6 headers on existing IPv6 deployments with routers containing silicon (e.g. ASIC, FPGA) forwarding engines that parse/parse-past the currently defined set of IPv6 headers and extensions. As someone else noted recently on the IPv6 Ops list, in the IETF words such as "SHOULD" or "SHOULD NOT" are entirely ignorable. So those don't address my concerns. As I've said before, I do think that with some specific edits to tighten up the wording (e.g. using words such as "MUST NOT" and requiring more specific justification & documentation than in a normal standards-action if one proposes defining any new IPv6 header), the draft could be edited into a form where it would be widely agreeable. I provided specific suggestions in the past on this, which I don't see reflected in the latest text. Perhaps I've overlooked something. I am on travel, which means that I am both short of time and have VERY limited Internet access. I will try to propose some specific edits to this draft, but I doubt I will be able to post a note to this list with those proposed edits until end of week (at earliest). Cheers, Ran -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
