[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: Hop-by-hop options in 2460bis
From:       "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert () cisco ! com>
Date:       2016-06-11 12:57:17
Message-ID: E0FA1729-89FD-4523-BCB5-5D0CD59340BB () cisco ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I preferred Ole's proposal but understand the point. Will support this clarification \
text.

Thanks Bob!

Pascal

> Le 10 juin 2016 à 23:06, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> Tom,
> 
> > > 
> > > I think this is fine, except for the last sentence that I think it too \
> > > prescriptive for rfc2460bis.  It is requiring new behavior.  Saying something \
> > > like: 
> > > It is expected that nodes that do not process or examine the Hop-by-Hop Options \
> > > header will ignore it, and it will be passed on unchanged if forwarded
> > This sounds somewhat weak and passive to me. Can we say:
> > 
> > Nodes that do not process or examine the Hop-by-Hop Options header
> > must ignore it, and must pass it on unchanged if forwarded.
> 
> Purposely so.  The reason is that we can't advance this to Internet Standard if we \
> introduce new behavior.  We can relax the requirements, as the text proposed by Ole \
> does.  Hope that helps. 
> Bob
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]