(sorry for top-posting) I meant: everywhere there's diverging behaviour between rfc2460 and rfc8200, note both behaviors.
We can center discussion on rfc8200, and make refs to rfc2460 look like "notes" (e.g., "rrc2470 used to blah blah...'). Thoughts? Thanks, Fernando El 20 oct. 2017 4:42 p. m., "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> escribió: > On 20/10/2017 22:53, Fernando Gont wrote: > > Hello, Bob, > > > > On 10/04/2017 06:38 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > >> > >> I also don’t think this is ready for a w.g. last call. > >> > >> It doesn’t reference the new version of the IPv6 specification > >> RFC8200. There were a number of clarifications in RFC8200 regarding > >> extension headers that may require changes in the draft. > > > > We talked a bit about this. Best option seems to be to keep the current > > text and add text regarding the changes in RFC8200 -- at the end of th > > day, an operator will have to deal with both RFC2460 and RFC8200 > > implementations. > > > > Thoughts? > > I don't think that is 100% right. Yes, of course add a general note at > the front stating that the current standard is 8200 but that many > implementations were based on 2460. But then, change all the references > to 8200 and add text where there is an actual difference between the > two cases. So far I think two have been pointed out: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/StjbjvCP9PLC3ssnTKYO6jqFgk0 > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/9FigBATRkVHAurXv3aNNR-Z46JU > but there may be others. > > Brian > >
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
