The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Flow Label Specification'
as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments
On Jun 29, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I looked at Last Call time period and IESG telechat schedule and saw that if
> we want this approved before the IETF, it needs to go to IETF Last Call
> today. So I sent it in. If there are substantive comments from the working
> group we can pu
I looked at Last Call time period and IESG telechat schedule and saw
that if we want this approved before the IETF, it needs to go to IETF
Last Call today. So I sent it in. If there are substantive comments from
the working group we can pull the document back for further
consideration in the wo
Good. Are we ready to send this to Last Call, or do we want to wait for
possible other comments from the working group?
Jari
Brian E Carpenter kirjoitti:
I believe this version resolves Jari's comments and the
subsequent discussion.
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D A
Thomas, Brian,
Sure. But why should that impact how the Flow Label is rewritten from
zero to something else?
Because different routers might pick different labels for packets
that belong to the same flow.
Yes, that was my concern.
But, this implies packets from the same flow are be
I believe this version resolves Jari's comments and the
subsequent discussion.
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-05.txt
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:11:29 -0700
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
CC: ipv6@ietf.org
A
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Flow Label Specification
Author(s) : Shane Amante
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-06-30 04:42, Thomas Narten wrote:
> I'm generally OK with this text.
>
> Brian E Carpenter writes:
>>o This option, if implemented, would presumably be of value in
>> first-hop or ingress routers. It might place a considerable per-
>> packet processing load on them, even
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Node Requirements'
as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to th
I'm generally OK with this text.
Brian E Carpenter writes:
>o This option, if implemented, would presumably be of value in
> first-hop or ingress routers. It might place a considerable per-
> packet processing load on them, even if they adopted a stateless
> method of flow
On Jun 28, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I'm fine with this text.
>
As am I.
Bob
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
11 matches
Mail list logo
