RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

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

 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
 
> In Section 4 ("IPv6 Extension Headers") the draft says:
> 
> >    With one exception, extension headers are not processed by any node
> >    along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or
> >    each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the
> >    Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.
> 
> (FYI, the exception is the hop-by-hop extension header.)
> 
> I do not dispute that this sentence reached WG consensus. However, I want
> to ask if it has IETF consensus. In my opinion, this sentence should read
> 
>    With one exception, extension headers are not processed, inserted,
>    deleted or modified by any node along a packet's delivery path, until
>    the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case
>    of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6
>    header.
> 
> I believe this was always the intended meaning of the word "processed"
> from the earliest design phase of IPv6, but some people have read this
> text as allowing insertion, deletion or modification of headers. IMHO
> it needs to be clarified.

I also prefer Brian's text. Just remembering that it took a long time to reach consensus. My impression was that some people preferred to retain the ambiguity. But not me, so I vote for Brian's clarified text. One extra comma, though: "... inserted, deleted, or modified ..."

Bert






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