Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   I fail to understand your conclusion here:
   
=> Have you read my previous messages?

   the mechanism describe by Greg and Erik seem to be compliant with 
   RFC3697 to me...

=> don't joke: there can not be two different simultaneous uses of
flow labels, so if you'll use flow labels for shim6, you'll remove
any possible use, including the unspecified QoS stuff (called flow
state establishment and related service in RFC 3697). This is why
I used the word "real" for compliance: not only the text of RFC 3697
matters, but the spirit also and you can't argue any proposal using
flow labels for shim6 will be compatible with any proposal using
flow labels for QoS as soon as it is RFC 3697 compliant...

   I mean, in this approach the flow label used for a exchanging packets 
   with a given src and dst addresses remains constant during the lifetime 
   of the communication, so could you point out exactly which part of 
   RFC3697 they are not compliant with?
   
=> I've considered only approachs which fulfill some requirements:
 - shim6 negociation during communication (vs. before communication)
 - mobility (i.e., unpredictable address) support.
(parts of what I called shim6 goals)

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr