Vinton G. Cerf wrote:
I want to clarify something here. IANA is not at fault. It submits requests
like this to IESG to assure that there is consistency in
standards work. In the past there have been attempts to circumvent standards
work that is under way by directly submitting requests
to IANA for assignment. I am not aware of the present status of any
IETF-related work that might consume any or all of the bits in
question in the IPv6 header. Larry has developed a reasonable method for
dealing with flow control even if the payload of the IPv6
packet is encrypted. there may be debates about the method chosen but that
doesn't seem to be the issue here. To avoid conflicts,
Larry is reasonably asking for an assignment.
Vint, the technical implications are considerably more complex than
avoiding conflicts. That's the point, as Sam's message tried to
clarify. Just making an assignment without thorough IETF review
of those implications would have been highly irresponsible.
If Larry wants to proceed, an I-D explaining the proposal and
how it may or may not interact with other current work in the
IETF would be a good first step.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf