I do not understand how 2460bis makes it "easier" if proposed change to the text directly tries to prohibit what is described in a document already long time back accepted as a 6man working group draft.
That's to the best of my memory an IETF precedent.
Cheers,
R.
On Mar 30, 2017 16:50, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 31/03/2017 10:13, Robert Raszuk wrote:Once we get 2460bis out of the door, we should seriously tackle that question.
> What's wrong or what is missing in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment- routing-header-05
>
> ?
Honestly it's going to be easier then. I perhaps disagree with Ole whether we
need an Updates: 2460bis but that depends on the details.
Brian