Re: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: (with COMMENT)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 08/10/2013 23:31, Stephen Farrell wrote:
...
> - 2.1 says nodes SHOULD forward rfc4727 experimental
> headers, but earlier said that its ok (nodes MAY) default
> to not forwarding packets with experimental headers. I
> think you need to add an "unless otherwise stated here"
> to the statement about defaults for experimental headers.

I must be missing something, but I can't find an inconsistency.

> 
> - section 4: Is it wise to ask IANA to "redirect" users
> from one (empty) registry to another? That could be the
> start of a slippery slope turning IANA registries into a
> miasma of hypertext;-) Maybe it'd be better to ask that
> IANA mark that registry as having being replaced by this
> new one. Also - what if someone else asks IANA to add an
> entry to the currently empty registry but not the new one
> - is it clear what should happen in that case?

It does need to be clear that the old registry is closed,
but we have to leave a pointer because it's referred to
elsewhere. I think IANA can figure it out, but we should
add "close to new entries".

I think we are already in a miasma of hypertext.

     Brian
> 
> 
>