| The proposal includes significant changes to the
| Internet architecture including a new TCP congestion control
| algorithm, new requirements for IPsec security gateways and new
| behavior for routers.
Whether any of that is a viable proposal or not is for others to
judge (not even the IESG I'd suggest), but it makes no difference
what the answer is to that question for the actual request that
was made.
there is precedence regarding concern over new efforts and their
relationship to TCP. I can't cite chapter and verse, but I seem to
recall that the work on reliable-multicast and BEEP (two different
efforts altogether) were informed by the powers-that-be to be
"TCP friendly". the degree by which one views the new algorithm as
"unfriendly" is something I'll defer to others more qualified than
myself.
what I do find troubling is the arguement that new requirements
for IPsec security gateways and new behavior for routers is an
added reason for rejecting the proposal. in a rebuttal comment,
Thomas Narten writes:
RFC 2780 says:
5.5 IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option Fields
Values for the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options fields
are allocated using an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards
Action processes.
(where those terms are defined in RFC2434.)
The clear intention of the above is that assignments for HBH code
points be conditioned on IETF review (and approval). That is, a
document that gets published as an Internet Draft, gets reviewed, and
then pops out as an RFC.
intention or even tradition has little weight. The key word used
above is IESG Approval "or" standards action (ie, RFC). That being
the case and agreed to by the IESG allows Dr. Roberts to go straight
to the IESG and ask for the extension.
Dr. Roberts may have given the IESG a jolt in being very thorough
about what could be done with such an extension, but I side with
Robert Elz as to the relevence. The system says that someone can
make a request for an extension to IPv6. If there are no additional
criteria set forth for the field, and the extension doesn't clash,
it would seem that request should be satisfied. Dr. Roberts seems
to have played within the rules.
-ken
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf