Bill...
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 10:23 -0400, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 00:15, Scott W Brim wrote:
In SG13 there was considerable debate, and at the end the
group *allowed* exploration of the topic through development through a
new draft recommendation.
assuming, for sake of argument, that the general proposal makes
sense[1], it sounds like the details are still very much up in the air;
assigning a "final" IPv6 option codepoint might actually be
counterproductive (as early behavior might be cast in code, concrete, or
silicon and forever burden future implentations).
I think I have a fundamental disagreement with you at this point - the
assignment of the codepoint can (and should) be separated from the
acceptance of the specification as a standard. IANA could certainly
assign the codepoint now, independent of whether the specification is
finished. At the time the specification is accepted as a standard, the
assignment could be updated with a reference to the specifying document.
I don't think there is any notion that assignment of a codepoint implies
that interpretation of the codepoint and implementation of any mechanism
associated with the codepoint is required by any network element that
otherwise implements IPv6. The acceptance as a standard would provide
the impetus to implement and deploy devices that implement the
codepoint.
The current v6 spec, however, doesn't give them much room to maneuver
here.
An IPv6 option codepoint reserved for (topologically) local experiments
would make sense (given the nature of the proposal, it is inherently
"local" to a connected set of routers supporting it).
- Bill
[1] and only for sake of argument...
- Ralph
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf