RE: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 9:22 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Bob Hinden; Brian Haberman; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Re-use of fragment header in SEAL
> 
> Fred,
> 
> > Fred,
> >>     The way you have re-used the Next Header value of the Fragment
> >> Header may be troublesome.  If someone updates 2460 to change the
> >> Fragment Header (i.e., add additional info in the current Reserved
> >> field), they will step on your use of the header and make them
> >> indistinguishable.
> >
> > That is true, but if the SEAL document were the one to update RFC2460
> > then there would be no concerns for future collisions. So, in the
> next
> > document version I will add "Updates RFC2460". Thanks for the
> comment.
> 
> I don't think it is appropriate for a draft that is updating an
> experimental RFC to update a standards track RFC.  It will cause a lot
> of confusion in the community.

I think then that we would need to re-target SEAL as standards-track,
and as obsoleting the previous experimental RFC. I can make that
change in the next draft version so that it is clear that we are
not trying to make an experimental update a standards track.

Then, I guess the next question is whether we want to continue with
SEAL as an individual sub or bring it in as a 6man wg item? I am
open to either approach.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]
 
> Bob