Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-03.txt>

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 14:39:14 -0400

On 2nd July 2011, Karl Auer wrote, in part:
> It seems strange to me that we define "IPv6 Extension Headers",
> then refuse to allow any further extensions!

Kindly note that this document does NOT prohibit future IPv6 extensions.
That is a mis-understanding of this document.

Please re-read the actual document.

Background:

* IPv6 has always been specified and intended to carry 
  future options and extensions inside the pre-defined "bucket" 
  headers (e.g. Hop-by-Hop Header, Destination Options Header),
  each of which can contain multiple options concurrently.

In slightly more detail...

The document DOES now very clearly define the rules 
for creating new types of *headers*.  These are 
mostly documentation rules.  

	More dangerous behaviours, such as hop-by-hop behaviour, 
	will require more documentation to justify the necessity 
	of the more dangerous behaviour.

In any event, it is important to recall that defining 
a new "header type" is very different from defining 
new IPv6 options or IPv6 extensions.  

Yours,

Ran

---

From: Karl Auer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 09:15:07 +1000

> That is a mis-understanding of this document.

I was not taking issue with the document, I was just commenting on your
assertion that it would be "highly undesirable" to create more extension
headers.

Sorry to have been unclear about that.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer ([email-masked])                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/                   +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156