Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 1-mei-2005, at 20:01, Pekka Savola wrote:

> > Also, looks like RFC 2460 dropped the ball here. It actually draws  
> > extension headers as having a next header and a length field in a  
> > fixed place, but then doesn't say that all extension headers  
> > should look like that.

> That's what http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/draft-savola-v6ops- 
> firewalling-02.txt section 3 tried to specify, and there are  
> implementation(s) which assume all the unspecified extension  
> headers are in TLV format.

> Unfortunately, there apparently wasn't sufficient interest for this  
> spec, maybe it was focusing on too many different communities.

I was actually surprised that RFC 2460 is the most recent IPv6 spec.  
With all the rewriting of RFCs going on I'd have expected this one to  
see a new version at least biannually.  :-)

But isn't there an RFC2640bis effort underway right now? Seems the  
natural place for this, and five lines in an existing RFC-to-be is  
always easier than making it an RFC of its own.