Alexandru,
I am for adopting this draft as WG document.
Great!
It says that RH types should be allocated through "IETF Review" or "IESG
Approval" - these methods seem to me the most appropriated because
offer the widest possible review through IETF - IESG and WG. This is
needed knowing tha
Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
I would like to gauge the WG's opinion on adopting
draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header-00 as a 6MAN WG document. All
comments, for or against, should be sent to the mailing list or the
chairs by September 15th, 2009.
I want to see it adopted,
Stig
Regard
Gabi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Gabi Nakibly [mailto:gnaki...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:41 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; v6ops
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; sec...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Routing loop attacks using IPv6 tunnels
>
> Fred,
>
> I agree that the source address chec
I am for adopting this draft as WG document.
It says that RH types should be allocated through "IETF Review" or "IESG
Approval" - these methods seem to me the most appropriated because
offer the widest possible review through IETF - IESG and WG. This is
needed knowing that RH has large importan
All,
I would like to gauge the WG's opinion on adopting
draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header-00 as a 6MAN WG document. All
comments, for or against, should be sent to the mailing list or the
chairs by September 15th, 2009.
Regards,
Brian
-
Jari, I wrote some comments when you first posted the question but
wouldn't send, doubting its relevance.
Since you re-ask...
I agree assigning routing header types should happen according to a
certain procedure. I guess IANA is better for this. And I agree with
the proposal in draft-arkko-ip
I would again like to return to this draft. I realize its a small
matter, but I wouldn't like to hold the draft in this state forever. Can
we adopt this in the WG and move it forward to an RFC?
Jari
Brian Haberman wrote:
Jari,
As an individual contributor, I am happy with the rules speci
