On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 00:15, Scott W Brim wrote: > In SG13 there was considerable debate, and at the end the > group *allowed* exploration of the topic through development through a > new draft recommendation. assuming, for sake of argument, that the general proposal makes sense[1], it sounds like the details are still very much up in the air; assigning a "final" IPv6 option codepoint might actually be counterproductive (as early behavior might be cast in code, concrete, or silicon and forever burden future implentations). The current v6 spec, however, doesn't give them much room to maneuver here. An IPv6 option codepoint reserved for (topologically) local experiments would make sense (given the nature of the proposal, it is inherently "local" to a connected set of routers supporting it). - Bill [1] and only for sake of argument... _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf