Hi,
On 7/4/21 11:58, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote on 07/04/2021 15:22:
I guess that the authors could consider adding a sentence that it
also doesn't provide any recommendation on how end hosts make use of
extension headers, but that might be a bit incongruous in the sense
that the document doesn't appear to talk about end host behaviour at
all ...
well, this is kinda the concern that we as authors have. The document
is completely clear that it's descriptive, and not prescriptive, and
there is an entire disclaimer section which points this out. We get
Tom's interest in having a document that tells forwarding stack software
authors what to aim towards, but this isn't that document and we've got
well-defined reasons for not wanting to move in that direction.
If Tom or others find that the idea of a descriptive-only document
doesn't match what they would want, well ok, I guess that's
understandable from the point of view of a software author - but
consensus isn't unanimity either. As you suggest, adding an extra
sentence as a further disclaimer seems incongruous and I'm not sure that
it would turn the document into a better version of itself.
Tom seems to be willing to have a document that proposes a path forward
to improve usage of EHs. As noted in the very disclaimer, this is not
that document. That's subject to a different document that interested
parties should submit.
So, in my opinon, this document is ready tp ship to the IESG.
Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
