Hi Robert, > On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > Could you elaborate a bit on the definition of "accidentally escaping packets" ? > > The fundamental issue with original Suresh suggestion I see is that his proposed text kills ability to have 2460bis as normative reference in any other draft describing or defining extension headers. And effectively stops any work which needs to be based on 2460bis till 2460bis is updated. This is not true. The *new draft* will update RFC2460bis. We do not need a new (RFC2460bis)bis to do this. I can understand that this would be bad, but that is not the intent. Thanks Suresh
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>