Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi,


> 4) I expect that, as co-chair, you'd agree with me that allowing EH
> insertion in IPv6 is a major modification/addition. According to our
> charter, we don't seem allowed to do that:


Do you need a new charter to be allowed to standardize extensions to IPv6
header and their operations like SRH ? That is not what AD and chairs said
and one would assume they know better how to guide the work in the group.

Because if this is really the case - we should indeed stop any efforts in
this regard and perhaps seriously start considering a new WG formation to
work on new IP header design perhaps even backwards compatible with current
IPv6 "legacy".

In the meantime - if what you communicate is true WG consensus - proposals
for addition of EH to IPv4 become not only nice to have, but in fact very
useful to have.

Thx,
r.