Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

[Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Robert,

On Mar 31, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Even if we treat encapsulation in new IPv6 header as only an option ?

There are two options listed in the draft with the “either” clause quoted below. Both of them are compliant. In fact, in my not so careful reading, I do not see any text in draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-06 that would be contrary to this text in RFC2460bis.

Thanks

Suresh

P.S.: I am assuming you are using the word option to mean a choice and not an IPv6 option. If not, please clarify.

Thx

R.

On Mar 31, 2017 12:46, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Robert,

On Mar 31, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Suresh,

As you requested one of many quotes from the draft which your clarification to 2460bis directly contradicts with:

This include either:

      A host originating an IPv6 packet.

      An SR domain ingress router encapsulating a received IPv6 packet
      into an outer IPv6 header followed by an SRH.

Excellent. Thanks for pointing out the exact text. I can confirm that this text  *is compliant* with the RFC2460bis text.

Thanks

Suresh

<<attachment: smime.p7s>>