Subject: [6man] #18 (rfc2460bis): Routing header should be added to “full implementation” list?

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:50:53 -0000

#18: Routing header should be added to “full implementation” list?

 While text on RH0 is  removed, hosts still need to implement routing
 header support. Regardless of RH0 deprecation. (Since hosts as the final
 destination does not have to support the specific header type).

-- 
----------------------------------+-----------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:
     Type:  defect                |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                 |  Milestone:
Component:  rfc2460bis            |    Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call       |   Keywords:
----------------------------------+-----------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/18>
6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>