On 21/10/2017 12:36, Fernando Gont wrote: > (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...').
Exactly right. I think that I already proposed text in that spirit for the RH0 case. Brian > 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
