Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



But the refusal of a code point is not effective, and in fact counter-productive (since the option will indeed be deployed, you just won't know what code point it self-assigned).


On Jun 28, 2005, at 23:10, Keith Moore wrote:


those are both valid concerns, but relatively minor concerns compared to the potential for poorly designed IP options to have an adverse effect on Internet interoperation, at any layer from 3 up.
and one stops that by refusing a unique codepoint?

one stops it by any means that is effective and available.

Hans Kruse, Associate Professor
J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management
Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
292 Lindley Hall, Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701
740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]