Subject: draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-01

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:09:50 -0400

In general, I think the idea of this draft is good (the clarity
outweighs the loss of flexibility).  I have one minor comment.
Section 3 of this draft states:

   The scheme proposed in this document is backward compatible with all
   the currently defined IPv6 extension headers except the Fragment
   Header.

This is not 100% correct because AH has a different definition for the
header (payload) length field:

   This 8-bit field specifies the length of AH in 32-bit words (4-byte
   units), minus "2".
   (Section 2.2, RFC4302)

While this variation doesn't affect the main point of the draft, I
think it's better to note that explicitly.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------