On 8/9/19 01:23, Robert Raszuk wrote: [...] > > 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.
WGs do have a charter, which specifies what the WG does. That's why, in the extreme case, 6man doesn't do TCP stuff. Charters are not casted into stone, though. > 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". Besides having my own personal opinion, I'd say that no matter the path you want to follow (or need to follow) to pursue this, you really should have a much stronger and complete document than the current proposal. > In the meantime - if what you communicate is true WG consensus - I'm not entitled to communicate things for the wg. I made a comment about the charter -- a side comment that came up while noting that EH-insertion does *not* seem to be a minor addition/modification to IPv6. > proposals for addition of EH to IPv4 become not only nice to have, but > in fact very useful to have. I'm not sure I follow... -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
