I think as has already been suggested we are having two different
discussions masquerade as one. I obviously can't speak for Robert but
it
seems to me he is not saying the IESG ought to approve every (or any)
extension of IP, he is merely saying each should have an option number
assigned. Why assign a dangerous, harmful protocol an option? For
the
same
reason sex offenders in the US have to register - so everyone can be
aware
of their presence and take the appropriate precautions.
The problem is the really small size of the option type field in IPv6.
There really only are 5 bits available for numbering both the hop by hop
and the end to end options. That makes for a grand total of 32, of which
three are assigned by basic IPv6 specs. So, there really are good
reasons to be somewhat conservative with the assignments.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf