Richard Barnes' No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: (with COMMENT)

["Richard Barnes" <[e-mail]>]

Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you provide any citations on the middle box behaviors, e.g., lack
of support for all of 2460?

10 points to the INT area for the cite to Heller :)

"... Not just a failure to recognize such a header".  
Isn't this another Catch-22?  If a node doesn't recognize a header, how
does it know if it's standard or not?  This also seems in contradiction
to later guidance that unrecognized extensions may be dropped by
default.

A flow chart or pseudo code might be useful in Section 2.1, like "if
(known && standard) { /* policy */ }"