Subject: Re: Endianness of IPv6 and payloads

From: Tim Enos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:53:48 -0500 (CDT)

Good afternoon all. With all due deference and respect to my more senior IETF colleagues (participating in this thread and in the group at large):

>From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
>Date: 2006/09/16 Sat PM 12:13:40 CDT
>To: Eric Klein <[email-masked]>
>Cc: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>, 
	IETF IPv6 Mailing List <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: Endianness of IPv6 and payloads

>On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Eric Klein wrote:
>> On September 16, 2006 00:26 Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> On the other hand, is it good for a standards organization to leave 
>>> important technical details unspecified and assume tradition and 
>>> interoperability testing will take care of the difference?

IMO it is not good to make such assumptions. In this case it seems clear that such assumptions have not to date taken care of the difference.

>>> 
>> I think not, real question is do we want implicit or explicit standards? I 
>> vote for explicit

I vote for an explicit standard in this case.

>
>No, the real question is, "how do we want the spend the time and 
>energy in the IETF?", in other words, is this obvious enough that 
>making explicit guidance isn't worth our time (as there is probably a 
>lot of other things that the IETF and its participants could be 
>doing).

It would seem a fairly simple yet worthwhile thing to standardize the endianness of IPv6 (both headers and payload for that matter). Is it the majority view that we should do this?

Best Regards all,

Tim
Rom 8:28

>
>-- 
>Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
>Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
>Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>[email-masked]
>Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:14:34 +0200

> It would seem a fairly simple yet worthwhile thing to standardize  
> the endianness of IPv6 (both headers and payload for that matter).  
> Is it the majority view that we should do this?

I'm in favor. It's certainly a better use of the IETF's collective  
time than all the process discussions.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:31:41 +0300

Gentlemen,

>> It would seem a fairly simple yet worthwhile thing to standardize the

>> endianness of IPv6 (both headers and payload for that matter).
>I'm in favor. It's certainly a better use of the IETF's 
>collective time than all the process discussions.

So why doesn't someone write-up a draft, get a couple of people to
review it
and given this email thread, there should be enough energy to push it 
as an informational / individual submission.

John

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:43:00 +0200

[email-masked] wrote:
> [write a draft]

How about revving 2460?

Eliot