I was a little surprised by this document when I read it. The title is "An uniform format for IPv6 extension headers", and the abstract reads as I'd expect. However, when we get to section 3 (Applicability) "SHOULD" and "MUST" are used, *not* to require people to use a uniform format for IPv6 extension headers, but instead:
1) implementations SHOULD use destination options as the preferred mechanism for encoding optional destination information 2) The request for creation of a new IPv6 extension header MUST be accompanied by an specific explanation of why destination options could not be used 3) new IPv6 Extension Header(s) having hop-by-hop behaviour MUST NOT be created or specified 4) new options for the existing Hop-by-Hop Header SHOULD NOT be created or specified unless no alternative is feasible 5) new optional information to be sent SHOULD be encoded in a new option for the existing IPv6 Destination Options Header 6) new IPv6 extension headers MUST NOT be created or specified, unless no existing IPv6 Extension Header can be used 7) Any proposal to create or specify a new IPv6 Extension Header MUST include a detailed technical explanation of why no existing IPv6 Extension Header can be used I don't particularly object to any of these, but none of these relate to the format of IPv6 extension headers. When we get to section 4, which details the uniform format, no SHOULD or MUST language is present. This seems to mean that the document's title and abstract do not match the imperative content of the document. Fixing this could be a simple as changing the title and abstract, plus possibly adding something in Section 4 to actually encourage use of the uniform format. I've also noted a few more minor points below. David. Title: "An Uniform" - for me this should be "A Uniform". Googling for both says "A Uniform" is more used by about 40-1, but also brings up some documents explaining the disagreement. Section 1: "Also, Several" -> "Also, several" Section 3: I think there's an unwanted page break after the first paragraph of section 3. Section 4: Should you give a reference to the IANA protocol numbers registery when you desceibe Next Header? Section 5 should probably give a list of the existing headers that do follow this format. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------