At this point, it seems like the best thing to do is draft two separate
proposals:
1) list extension headers, and
2) a separate one to deal with firewalls and how they deal with extensions.
That way, we can get the first one thru fairly quickly (it doesn't seem like
there is actually muc
On 17/02/2013 11:37, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Just to focus on one area at the moment:
>
>>> If an extension proves itself safe, easily parse-able, and useful, it
>>> will be transported over the public Internet. If it doesn't, it will get
>>> dropped.
>> At the moment this is impossible. There is no
Just to focus on one area at the moment:
>
>> If an extension proves itself safe, easily parse-able, and useful, it
>> will be transported over the public Internet. If it doesn't, it will get
>> dropped.
>
> At the moment this is impossible. There is no place for firewall
> implementors to find
