Re: [Spud] updated draft PLUS charter, rev. 1 June

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 6/7/2016 3:05 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> The proper architectural solution is to place network layer
> information like what is being proposed in the network layer :-)
> Trying to make a network layer out of UDP fails on several accounts
> (fragments don't contain UDP headers, ports do not have global
> meaning, etc.). IPv6 extension headers are designed for carrying
> information like this, I really hope there is more investigation as to
> whether they are workable for signaling.

It depends on what layer is actually doing the signaling. If it's
on-path, I agree - that's network layer and should be somewhere besides
the transport header. If'it's on-path but not from the endpoint it also
begs the question of whether IP packet headers should be extended
in-transit (I made the case long ago that this was valid for IPv6 but I
think someone is working to close that loophole or already has).

Joe