On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-02-18 21:55, Pekka Savola wrote:
I think this document should also discuss APIs we have defined and that
relate to the protocols described in the document. A separate section
should be added on this.
I'm not convinced. If the goal is to specify a working set of features
to make a node interoperable on the wire, APIs are out of scope.
I think I understand your reasoning for that kind of scoping, but the
document does not restrict itself to just making a node interoperable
on the wire. FWIW, RFC1122 and 1812 do not make similar scoping
restriction.
The document is silent on Flow Label (as Brian mentioned). Rather than
silence, I might be tempted to say something at least from the current
perspective. The key point here is, "are hosts expected to randomize or
otherwise by default set a flow label"?
Until we have settled on 3697bis, there is no answer to that question.
I think it would be misleading to mention it.
Section S 5.1 already has a MUST requirement for supporting RFC2460.
RFC2460 main body and appendix describe the behaviour for assigning
flows at the originating node. This was made more specific in RFC3697
that updated 2460.
Given the situation we already have, I think it would be best to
address this point by describing what we currently have already
specified and the document requires. A warning "This behaviour is
being revised." would be sufficient to address upgrade path issues.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
