Bill... On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 10:23 -0400, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > 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). I think I have a fundamental disagreement with you at this point - the assignment of the codepoint can (and should) be separated from the acceptance of the specification as a standard. IANA could certainly assign the codepoint now, independent of whether the specification is finished. At the time the specification is accepted as a standard, the assignment could be updated with a reference to the specifying document. I don't think there is any notion that assignment of a codepoint implies that interpretation of the codepoint and implementation of any mechanism associated with the codepoint is required by any network element that otherwise implements IPv6. The acceptance as a standard would provide the impetus to implement and deploy devices that implement the codepoint. > 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... - Ralph _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf