[Mip6] Re: second look at issue 73

And I meant RFC 4038, not 4083... sorry for the typo.

Jari

> On Hesham's request I looked at the past discussion relating
> to issue 73 (mapped v4 addresses vs. a new option).
>
> Like 93, consensus was thin if it existed at all, and you
> probably should have continued the discussion instead
> of closing the issue as soon as a one person majority was
> detected :-) This working group needs to understand
> issues and agree more, and have less divisive consensus
> calls that end up resembling voting. I was positively
> surprised that we were able to move forward with
> issue 93 after all, so lets continue that in future issues.
>
> But back to issue 73. Hesham, I would like you to
> implement this functionality through a separate
> option, on your AD's request and as a part of
> bypassing future issues in AD review. After
> reviewing RFC 4083 and RFC-to-be-draft-ietf-
> v6ops-security-overview, I believe we should
> not introduce additional on-the-wire usage
> for v4 mapped addresses where it can be
> easily avoided. Even if this usage would be
> for something else than the outer IP header.
>
> Jari
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6