Ole,
After reading the replies, I wonder if you could amend your summary with
one point in particular:
On 4 Feb 2017, at 2:32, otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org wrote:
There were three main positions argued in the working group.
1) Ban header insertion outright.
2) Describe the problems with header insertion.
3) No changes to RFC2460 text.
What did you see as the objections to going with (1) (which I presume to
be the equivalent of Brian's proposed text)? Why was it that people
thought the protocol could not be clarified to say that? And was your
assessment that those arguments were correct, or that they simply were
not addressed by the WG? I've seen several people argue on this list
that (1) was always the intent of the protocol, and that damage occurs
if you don't follow that directive. I haven't seen anyone here argue
otherwise. Could you summarize?
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478