> If you think a document on tunnels rules how IPv6 operates, and its > end-to-endianness, then you have a huge problem reading specs.
So in your view building any solution which relies on encapsulation/tunneling for IPv6 kills its end-to-endianness dogma then this is a very interesting individual WG member comment. In the meantime till IETF moves Standards Track RFC2473 to historic status or updates it with some other spec it remains a valid document. Cheers, Robert. On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 3:46 AM Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote: > On 7/12/19 15:40, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Hi Fernando, > > > > > > The online possible instantiation of "Destination Address" as in > RFC8200 > > is the final destination of the packet. > > > > > > No. That is incorrect. > > > > Hint: Please read carefully RFC2473. > > If you think a document on tunnels rules how IPv6 operates, and its > end-to-endianness, then you have a huge problem reading specs. > > So I will not enter that game, because it would be accepting to be > mocked at. > > I'll wait for a few days for our INT AD's response (Suresh), a response > from the spring chairs (if any), and a response from the RTG AD(s). > > Then I will escalate the problem as required, including a formal appeal, > if necessary. > > Thanks, > -- > 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
