+1
Is there a way to decouple this discussion from
draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain? I would be glad to discuss it in the
context of a separate draft.
Ron
> >
> > So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of
> > "thoughtful analysis" so much as the fact that **they were rushing to
> > get a spec out the door**. So now, 16 years later, we get to put it
> > back on the 6man charter milestone list.
>
> We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that
> it's relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized-
> header-chain
> is ready. This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the current
> IPv6 standards.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
