[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-05.txt



Fred,

Looking at all the discussion/arguments, I think we have 
consensus about not adding the proposed code point to the
spec.

I agree with all others that it is not required in this
spec and it is not a good idea to add this code point at
this (DS) stage.

Regards
Mukesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ipv6-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> ext Tim Hartrick
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:12 PM
> To: Fred Templin
> Cc: Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG; Pekka Savola; Perry Lorier
> Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-05.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 15:18, Fred Templin wrote:
> > It wasn't specified, but the IPv6 layer should have reasonable
> > assurance that
> > the corruption occurred beyond the end of the header before sending
> > ICMPs.
> >  
> 
> It is hard to imagine the IESG allowing functionality this speculative
> to arrive in a specification that is recycling at DS.  And for good
> reason.  There is no chance that any functionality like this could get
> implementation reports sufficient to qualify for DS within three IETFs
> let alone within a couple of days or weeks.
> 
> This work doesn't belong in this specification.  It may not belong
> anywhere because of the issues cited by Perry.
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Hartrick
> Mentat Inc.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@xxxxxxxx
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------