I do not understand how 2460bis makes it "easier" if proposed change to the
text directly tries to prohibit what is described in a document already
long time back accepted as a 6man working group draft.
That's to the best of my memory an IETF precedent.
Cheers,
R.
On Mar 30, 2017 16:50, "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 31/03/2017 10:13, Robert Raszuk wrote:
What's wrong or what is missing in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-05
?
Once we get 2460bis out of the door, we should seriously tackle that
question.
Honestly it's going to be easier then. I perhaps disagree with Ole whether
we
need an Updates: 2460bis but that depends on the details.
Brian