Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> The new flow label proposed standard is here, as well as >> the rationale document (RFC 6436) and the ECMP/LAG proposed >> standard (RFC 6438). >> >> This document formally updates RFC 2460 and says that every IPv6 >> source SHOULD set the flow label value accordingly. >> >> Maybe we can include this in draft-ietf-6man-node-req-ter when >> it comes.
I entirely agree it deserves mention in a -ter. > I agree this is a good idea. <draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt> > is recently entered AUTH48 so this may be possible. I'm doubtful adding this during AUTH48 would be a good idea. Were it merely changing a Normative Reference to the new document, I'd support this. But node-req-bis has no mention of Flow Label beyond referencing RFC2460; and at first blush I see no way to introduce Flow Label without text that would deserve an IETF LastCall. That said, I don't oppose covering Flow Label, and certainly any node-req RFC that covers Flow Label should reference this standard: it's just that adding this at AUTH48 seems a bit much. If, OTOH, we intended to back off to a new IETF LastCall, I'd support it. > I doubt we are going to update node-requirements again for a while, Understandable... but I sincerely hope "a while" doesn't turn into years. > so it would be good to do it now. I'm quite willing to reserve judgment until I see proposed text. -- John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
