RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

["Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <[e-mail]>]

 
> 
> For clarity, in terms of the pieces of your original note:
> 
> I consider (a), specifying the format at least to the level 
> of requiring 
> TLV encoding, to be a good idea.

I agree to this.

I think there is value in specifying a format that all subsequent extension headers MUST use.

Cheers, Manav

> 
> I do not see any particular advantage in (b), allocating a 
> code point, 
> but I can live with it if the WG wants it.
> 
> And (c), changing the RFC 2460 mandate on error and drop 
> handling, and 
> replacing it with the details used in destination option 
> bothers me.  It 
> seems to me we should have a strong reason for changing what 
> was agreed. 
>   Also, any usage of such bits will have to allow for existing 
> destinations, which will ignore such bits.  Still, if we want to make 
> using the extension headers easy, we should add the flag bits.  But I 
> don't know that we want to make it easy.  Just possible, if 
> we really, 
> badly, need to do it.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 1/5/2011 5:25 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> ...
> > I would appreciate your response to
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg13207.html
> >
> > Thanks
> > Suresh
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>