Ok so till a new document updates 2460bis any further work on EHs is frozen
as it would reference 2460bis with new text. That was my main point.
And what current EH implementations are supposed to do in the mean time ?
Would IANA allocate codepoints for EH work before 2460bis is formally
updated which in the current IETF speed is easy 2+years ?
Note that without the proposed clarification none of the above obstacles
exist.
Thx
R.
On Mar 30, 2017 10:47, "Suresh Krishnan"
<suresh(_dot_)krishnan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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