Le 18/04/2019 à 23:56, 神明達哉 a écrit :
At Thu, 18 Apr 2019 23:44:54 +0200,
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > of course not. But I expect your proposal will be quite controversial
> > and take a long time. I also admit I *expect* its odds are low and
it's
> > quite possible that you end up falling back to the status quo;
> > changing a long standing standard is always hard. But that doesn't
> > mean I *hope* it will fail (also, my expectation can prove incorrect).
>
> This is a structural problem.
>
> If you direct us to 6MAN and know and assume the variable len IID gets
> stuck there then you should not direct as there.
Actually, that's exactly why my primary suggestion is to stick to the
status quo for now. Changing the status quo needs a discussion at
6man, and it will take long time and can possibly fail, so if you want
to avoid the delay, the only feasible option for now is to stick to
the status quo and defer any incremental changes to that separate
discussion. Hence the suggestion. I believe I've always been clear
about it, hiding nothing.
And it's now your call. If you don't like to go with the status quo
for now and do believe you can get a quick consensus at 6man, I just
wish you a good luck.
The status quo is the following: the IP-over-OCB does not specify the
len of IID. It refers to "other documents".
If we go to 6man is to get 6man consensus and quickly. Otherwise we
dont go there.
If you, or the AD think we could not get consensus there, then you, or
the AD, should not direct us there.
We could stay here and write IID len is 118. At that point it should be
6man who should come here and see whether 6man gets consensus here.
Alex
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
