Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: NH=59 action item closure

While that proposal does remove the mis-use of next-header 59, it seems 
a very odd use.
It seems to be an effort to avoid needing to register next-header 
values.  Why?

For example, if what is carried after the SRH is an IPv6 packet then the 
next header value for IPv6 (41) would seem the appropriate thing to use. 
  That would produce consistent parsing and clarity.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/12/2019 1:01 PM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Following the comments from IETF105, the working group preferred to 
> allocate a new Next Header value.
> 
> The authors would like to propose this diff. Any feedback is welcome.
> 
> <OLD>
> 
>     9.  IANA Considerations
> 
>        This document requests the following new IANA registries:
> 
> </OLD>
> 
> <NEW>
> 
>     9.  IANA Considerations
> 
> This document requests IANA to allocate a new IP Protocol Number value 
> for “SRv6 payload” with the following definition:
> 
> The value TBD in the Next Header field of an IPv6 header or any 
> extension header indicates that the payload content is identified via 
> the segment identifier in the IPv6 Destination Address.
> 
>        This document requests the following new IANA registries:
> 
> </NEW>
> 
> We would propose to submit a revision with this text on the IANA section 
> of NET-PGM beginning of next week.
> 
> Thanks,
> Pablo.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 