Ole,
After reading the replies, I wonder if you could amend your summary with one point in particular:
On 4 Feb 2017, at 2:32, otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
There were three main positions argued in the working group.
1) Ban header insertion outright.
2) Describe the problems with header insertion.
3) No changes to RFC2460 text.
What did you see as the objections to going with (1) (which I presume to be the equivalent of Brian's proposed text)? Why was it that people thought the protocol could not be clarified to say that? And was your assessment that those arguments were correct, or that they simply were not addressed by the WG? I've seen several people argue on this list that (1) was always the intent of the protocol, and that damage occurs if you don't follow that directive. I haven't seen anyone here argue otherwise. Could you summarize?
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478