Re: Tolerance

[Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[e-mail]>]

On 7/16/19 1:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> The first one of all reads:
>> It could be that the
>> 4 bits may be better devoted to making the flow id be a full
>> 32 bits.
>>
>>      I think Brian's words of
>>      SHOULD and MAY are important and a good idea too.
>>
>> Frankly, this is positively insane.   Either IPv6 is a variation
>> of IPv4, and shares the same ethernet type, with demux early
>> in the IP processing, or its new, and is demuxed at the ethernet
>> (and other) layers.   Having it both ways is just idiocy.
> So X is telling Y that Brian's idea is insane and idiotic, as far as
> I can see. But IPv6 ended up with both its own Ethertype and an IP version
> number field.
It sounds like the combative style of this 1996 poster was not effective 
in persuading the working group. It may even have been less persuasive 
than a more direct post explaining the disadvantages, for instance:

 > Either IPv6 is a variation
 > of IPv4, and shares the same ethernet type, with demux early
 > in the IP processing, or its new, and is demuxed at the ethernet
 > (and other) layers. If we try to have it both ways, we will
 > waste bits on the wire and introduce processing complexity for
 > implementators.