> >5.2 - should RFC 5175 - extensions to RA flags - be included?
> Issue 8: This would be good to add as well.
Can we see proposed text please?
I'm on the fence on this one. From an implementation perspective, it
makes little sense for anyone to go off and implement this
today. Until there is an actual defined option that uses this format,
why would an implementation bother adding code? Presumably, once a new
option is defined that actually uses the new format, at that point the
implementation would need to be updated (even if 5175 had already been
implemented). That is the point that it would make sense to actually
*require* implementation of 5175. It makes no sense to implement 5175
until an actual usage is defined.
I think it would be fine to reference this document as something that
may need to get implemented in the future. But no more.
How about the following for a strawman:
Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router
Advertisement flags. As of today, 6 have been assigned, while 2
are available for future assignment. RFC 5175 defines a way to
expand the single-bit flag field to 56 (or more) bits. Future
Router Advertisement extensions requiring single bit flags will
eventually make use of this extension. At the present time,
however, there is no defined extension that uses RFC 5175.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
