Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

Hi Robert,

> On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert(_at_)raszuk(_dot_)net> 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Could you elaborate a bit on the definition of "accidentally escaping 
> packets" ?
>
> The fundamental issue with original Suresh suggestion I see is that his 
> proposed text kills ability to have 2460bis as normative reference in any 
> other draft describing or defining extension headers. And effectively stops 
> any work which needs to be based on 2460bis till 2460bis is updated.
This is not true. The *new draft* will update RFC2460bis. We do not need a new 
(RFC2460bis)bis to do this. I can understand that this would be bad, but that 
is not the intent.

Thanks
Suresh

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature