Archive

[arch-d] Fwd: Re: some feedback on feedback on draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 09 May 2020 08:58 UTC

References: <CAOj+MMEpAkLdQgdTW_oaTP1d4PLhn2BBOrCJoEU02K_Hyb5vcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <07ca1532-1f89-21ee-afaf-758a8d7fe76e@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 05:55:12 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMEpAkLdQgdTW_oaTP1d4PLhn2BBOrCJoEU02K_Hyb5vcg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/CbL1xAr6vtIgNVJ2Lb8p3AtxoRU>
Subject: [arch-d] Fwd: Re: some feedback on feedback on draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03
Precedence: list

Heads-up for those that may care about IPv6's "architecture".

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: some feedback on feedback on 
draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update-03
Date: 	Sat, 9 May 2020 01:39:57 +0200
From: 	Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: 	Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
CC: 	6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>

     And even that much would wait on the resolution of the pending
     appeal on
     the topic.

If we would decouple end to end IPv6 from encapsulated transport IPv6 as 
well as allow required flexibility in the transport part there would no 
longer be any basis for the appeal.

Where does it say that we must wait for the result of the appeal if WG 
would like to propose the solution which turns the entire appeal in 
progress into a moot point ?

Thx,
R.

[arch-d] Fwd: Re: some feedback on feedback on dr… Fernando Gont