Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-04.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 26/7/20 19:14, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> IMHO this is useful work.
> 
>> A number of recent RFCs have discussed issues related to IPv6 extension headers,
> 
> I suggest to add RFC7045 to the bullet list, and delete the reference to it
> in the previous paragraph. In fact, the structure of the "Previous Work"
> section is a bit strange, with a prose paragraph followed by a bullet list.
> Maybe restructure that (e.g. transform it into a single longer bullet list)?

That's a good point.

I wonder if we could somehow separate:
* Std work that has become incorporated into the core spec.

* Other Std work that affects EHs but hasn't been incorporated into the 
core spec (e.g., RFC6980)

BTW... it seems that RFC7045 has not really been incorporated into 
RFC8200?   I mean, other work (e.g. RFC6946 has been incorporated into 
RFC8200, and currently their raison d'etre is mostly for the reader to 
find additional information -- but from the pov of RFC8200 is not really 
necessary to read RFC6946). OTOH, it would seem that RFC7045 still 
applies to RFC8200 in the very same way it applies/applied to RFC2460?
So in a way it should be in the bulleted list, but otoh it doesn't seem 
to have been incorporated into RFC8200 -- while it still applies to it?


Modulo RFC6980 (and RFC7045), it would seem that the first para (prose) 
could also be arranged as a set of bullets, noting something along the 
lines of "documents that discuss operational implications of EHs"?

And I guess we could also arrange the measurements stuff (last para) in 
their own set of bullets?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1