On 02/07/2017 06:25 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
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
<mailto: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?
Because if we did, the loophole for people to violate the standard would
disappear (talk about Segment Routing).
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492