Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, V

Fernando,

> > > > Fernando,
> > > >
> > > > Pete asked me to summarize the objections to option 1 - banning header 
> > > > insertion explicitly.
> > > > I responded with the set of objections I've heard for all options, as I 
> > > > couldn't see a straightforward way of only summarising for option 1.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand your message.
> > > > Do you disagree with the summary itself? Are there arguments missing?
> > > > Or is your grief that the I have distilled the arguments wrongly or put 
> > > > them in a bad light?
> > > >
> > > > Or are you just rehashing your position on the issue?
> > > I think that some points are not as clear as they should be:
> > >
> > > 1) The current state of affairs with respect to IPv6 EH insertion is
> > > that insertion is forbidden. It has always been clear to everyone.
> > I don't think it has. In fact, that's the whole point: some people
> > have *not* deduced that rule from the RFC2460/RFC1883 wording.
> "It has always been clear.... till these proposals on EH insertion arised".
>
> Since some people didn't "deduce" it from the current text, that's a
> clear indication that a clarification is warranted.
You can now optimize this discussion without having to bother the whole IETF 
list. Just look up the counter arguments in the previously posted summary.

E.g. the response to your argument in this email:
1.a.i) Out of scope: Argue the point of header insertion or alternatives in the 
context of those proposals, not in the context of the core IPv6 specification. 
Do not try to make a preemptive strike in the core specification.

Only partly tongue in cheek.
O.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP