Re: Next steps on Extension Header Insertion

[[e-mail]]

>>> I'd say that some of the options given in the poll are rather misleading... Because truth is that as of today, header insertion is not allowed. So any discussion about "preferred way of doing eh insertion" seems like an implicit update/"relax of the spec" to me.
>> 
>> I fully agree with you on the architectural principles. I also think the Internet should be end to end transparent and that firewalls, NATs and other middleboxes have no place in the Internet architecture. _That_ political statement isn't for the core IPv6 _protocol specification_ though.
> 
> It’s not a political statement though, it’s about allowable behaviour, which is what a specification determines.  At the moment there’s a widely held assumption of behaviour X, but a number of people are wanting to introduce behaviour Y (though I’m not aware of a WG ID that actually documents that?)

Indeed, and since no-one has proposed to do this (in a draft) makes it very fuzzy what we're arguing against (or for).
We're arguing about an imagined treat. ;-)

Best regards,
Ole