On Wed, 18 Sep 2019, 06:33 Brian E Carpenter, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ron, > > You wrote: > > > Isn't this [the Opaque header] also creating an opportunity for IETF WGs > to bypass IANA, creating their own registry, likely run badly? > > More than that, it's creating an opportunity for operators to bypass IETF > standards as well as IANA. > > Isn't that the essence of this whole discussion? > > They can do it anyway, but defining the code point at least makes it > possible for firewalls to discard such traffic if it escapes. Hence my > comment about draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering. > The word "opaque" means (from Google "meaning opaque"), "not able to be seen through; not transparent" If a protocol is opaque or not transparent to the IETF then that would mean somebody else owns it; it's their property rather than the IETFs. So somebody else's protocol being referred to by the IETF would fit the definition of "proprietary": "relating to an owner or ownership" So I think Proprietary would be a much more accurate name for this option if it were to go ahead. I'd much rather it didn't so we had a transparent and open IETF protocol. Regards, Mark. > Regards > Brian >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
