Subject: Re: RFC 6437 on IPv6 Flow Label Specification

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:02:59 +1300

Hi,

The new flow label proposed standard is here, as well as
the rationale document (RFC 6436) and the ECMP/LAG proposed
standard (RFC 6438).

This document formally updates RFC 2460 and says that every IPv6
source SHOULD set the flow label value accordingly.

Maybe we can include this in draft-ietf-6man-node-req-ter when
it comes.

   Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 07:10:38 -0700

Brian,

I agree this is a good idea.  <draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt> is recently entered AUTH48 so this may be possible.  I doubt we are going to update node-requirements again for a while, so it would be good to do it now.

The first step is to see if anyone on the list disagrees with this approach.  Comments?

I have asked the authors to propose text to the ipv6 list.

Bob

On Nov 1, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:07:49 -0400

>> Maybe we can include this in draft-ietf-6man-node-req-ter when

   I entirely agree it deserves mention in a -ter.

> I agree this is a good idea.  <draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt>
> is recently entered AUTH48 so this may be possible.

   I'm doubtful adding this during AUTH48 would be a good idea.

   Were it merely changing a Normative Reference to the new document,
I'd support this. But node-req-bis has no mention of Flow Label beyond
referencing RFC2460; and at first blush I see no way to introduce
Flow Label without text that would deserve an IETF LastCall.

   That said, I don't oppose covering Flow Label, and certainly any
node-req RFC that covers Flow Label should reference this standard:
it's just that adding this at AUTH48 seems a bit much. If, OTOH, we
intended to back off to a new IETF LastCall, I'd support it.

> I doubt we are going to update node-requirements again for a while,

   Understandable... but I sincerely hope "a while" doesn't turn
into years.

> so it would be good to do it now.

   I'm quite willing to reserve judgment until I see proposed text.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>