Hi, This is completely revised from the proposal we presented in Anaheim. This version allows locally defined use of the flow label in a simpler way, as the discussion suggested. It's still quite a dense read, but we believe that if this was adopted, it would open the way to actually using the flow label.
Brian and Sheng -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:44:42 -0700 (PDT) From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmiss...@ietf.org> To: brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com CC: shengji...@huawei.com A new version of I-D, draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Brian Carpenter and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update Revision: 02 Title: Update to the IPv6 flow label specification Creation_date: 2010-04-13 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 10 Abstract: Various uses proposed for the IPv6 flow label are incompatible with its existing specification. This document describes changes to the specification that permit additional use cases as well as allowing continued use of the previous specification. The IETF Secretariat. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
