Hi,
> 4) I expect that, as co-chair, you'd agree with me that allowing EH > insertion in IPv6 is a major modification/addition. According to our > charter, we don't seem allowed to do that: Do you need a new charter to be allowed to standardize extensions to IPv6 header and their operations like SRH ? That is not what AD and chairs said and one would assume they know better how to guide the work in the group. Because if this is really the case - we should indeed stop any efforts in this regard and perhaps seriously start considering a new WG formation to work on new IP header design perhaps even backwards compatible with current IPv6 "legacy". In the meantime - if what you communicate is true WG consensus - proposals for addition of EH to IPv4 become not only nice to have, but in fact very useful to have. Thx, r.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
