Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-02.txt

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 11-03-14 06:55 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>>
>>   I notice that Section 4 calls for TLV:
>>] 
>>] 4. Proposed IPv6 Extension Header format
>>] 
>>]  This document proposes that all IPv6 extension headers be encoded in
>>]  a consistent TLV format so that it is possible for nodes to skip over
>>]  unknown extension headers and continue to further process the header
>>]  chain.
>>
>> But I don't see the equivalent of Section 4.2 of RFC 2460, specifying
>> the TLV format.
> 
> The T is the "Next Header", the L is the "Hdr Ext Len" and V is the 
> "Header Specific Data" as specified in the figure in Section 4 of the
> draft.

   Well, of course "Next Header" _isn't_ the Type of this option (rather
it's the Type of the next option).

   And the "Hdr Ext Len" isn't a particularly intuitive coding of Length
either...

   IMHO, referring to this format as "TLV" is unnecessarily confusing.

   Also IMHO, if we do define another Extension Header, it's likely we'll
want to make it expandable using the TLV format we _are_ familiar with.

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>