Re: I-D Action: draft-han-6man-in-band-signaling-for-transport-qos-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Just replying on one point, since most of this discussion clearly
needs to happen in TSVWG:

On 17/10/2017 12:52, Lin Han wrote:
...
> 
>>  The HbH-EH may be examined and processed by the nodes that are
>>    explicitly configured to do so [RFC8200]
> 
> which also says in section 4.8:
> 
> "  New hop-by-hop options are not recommended because nodes may be
>    configured to ignore the Hop-by-Hop Options header, drop packets
>    containing a Hop-by-Hop Options header, or assign packets containing
>    a Hop-by-Hop Options header to a slow processing path.  Designers
>    considering defining new hop-by-hop options need to be aware of this
>    likely behavior.  There has to be a very clear justification why any
>    new hop-by-hop option is needed before it is standardized."
> 
> I believe you need much more explanation of why we should ignore this recommendation.
> 
> [LH] The propose does not introduce new hop-by-hop option header, we only introduce new option carried in the existing hop-by-hop option header, 

Yes, that is exactly what the paragraph from RFC8200 means: it
says "New hop-by-hop options are not recommended".

    Brian