A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers
RFC 6564

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-12-31
06 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-exthdr@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ralph Droms
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stephen Farrell
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Harrington
2012-04-10
06 (System) RFC published
2012-02-07
06 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2012-02-06
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2012-02-06
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2012-02-06
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2012-02-06
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-02-06
06 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2012-02-06
06 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup text changed
2012-02-05
06 Jari Arkko State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::External Party.
2012-01-21
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot comment]
I've cleared my Discuss.
2012-01-21
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-01-12
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]
2012-01-12
06 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]
- RFC 2460 says that "a receiver must not scan through a packet looking
for a particular kind of extension header and process ...
2012-01-12
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-01-11
06 Jari Arkko
Document placed on today's informal IESG telechat to try to clear the remaining issues. Per my review, discusses from Ralph and Stephen should be cleared, ...
2012-01-11
06 Jari Arkko State changed to IESG Evaluation::External Party from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup.
2012-01-11
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2012-01-11
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-06.txt
2012-01-05
06 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I cleared my Discuss on the basis of the RFC Editor note, but please recall that we normally also put a word in ...
2012-01-05
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-01-05
06 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2012-01-05
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation.
2012-01-05
06 Jari Arkko Ballot writeup text changed
2012-01-05
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2012-01-05
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2012-01-05
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-01-04
06 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Harrington has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-01-04
06 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot comment]
My colleagues have raised a well-rounded set of questions about this document. In addition, I think it could say more about the impact ...
2012-01-04
06 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2012-01-04
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2012-01-04
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
1) s4: Contains the following:

Next Header    8-bit selector.  Identifies the type of header
                ...
2012-01-04
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
RFC 6274 examines a number of issues with IPv4 options.  Should any of those be highlighted here for IPv6 options?  I guess the ...
2012-01-04
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2012-01-03
06 Wesley Eddy
[Ballot comment]
Extension headers are sensitive to ordering, partial deployment, and other issues.  I don't think the guidelines in this document mitigate these in a ...
2012-01-03
06 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2012-01-03
06 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2012-01-03
06 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
I agree with Adrian and Ron that this document updates RFC 2460.

I also agree with Stephen that additional discussion
is needed regarding ...
2012-01-03
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2012-01-02
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot comment]
This document updates RFC 2460, but I will let Adrian hold that DISCUSS.
2012-01-02
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-12-31
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot discuss]
Doesn't this update RFC 2460 such that the format of future extension
headers is predictable?
2011-12-31
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-12-31
06 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Kathleen Moriarty on 4-Dec-2011 suggested some
  editorial changes, and the author agreed to make them.  However, the
  ...
2011-12-31
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-12-30
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]
- Doesn't this update rfc 2460?
2011-12-30
06 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]
- RFC 2460 says that "a receiver must not scan through a packet looking
for a particular kind of extension header and process ...
2011-12-30
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]
- Doesn't this update rfc 2460?
2011-12-30
06 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]
- Has this gotten sufficient review? I saw no IETF LC comments at all
which is surprising for something that ostensibly changes IPv6 ...
2011-12-30
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-12-28
06 David Harrington
[Ballot comment]
abstract: s/past/beyond/
(past can also mean previous; the intro has more context for the usage)

intro:
s/absolutely essential in the Internet-Draft proposing the ...
2011-12-28
06 David Harrington
[Ballot comment]
abstract: s/past/beyond/
(past scan also mean previous; the intro has more context for the usage)

intro:
s/absolutely essential in the Internet-Draft proposing the ...
2011-12-28
06 David Harrington
[Ballot discuss]
sec 5:
how does a receiving implementation know whether this is the extension header layout, or fragment header (what is used to differentiate ...
2011-12-28
06 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-12-13
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2011-12-13
06 Jari Arkko Ballot has been issued
2011-12-13
06 Jari Arkko Created "Approve" ballot
2011-12-13
06 Jari Arkko Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-01-05
2011-12-13
06 Jari Arkko State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-12-05
06 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.
2011-12-05
06 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-11-29
06 Jean Mahoney Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Vijay Gurbani was rejected
2011-11-29
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty
2011-11-29
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty
2011-11-24
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok
2011-11-24
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok
2011-11-22
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2011-11-22
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2011-11-21
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2011-11-21
06 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> ...
2011-11-21
06 Jari Arkko
I have reviewed this draft. It is ready to move forward, and I have requested a last call to be initiated. In the meantime, I ...
2011-11-21
06 Jari Arkko Last Call was requested
2011-11-21
06 Jari Arkko State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation.
2011-11-21
06 Jari Arkko Last Call text changed
2011-11-21
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-11-21
06 (System) Last call text was added
2011-11-21
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-11-21
06 Jari Arkko State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2011-11-04
06 Cindy Morgan
  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
  ...
2011-11-04
06 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-11-04
06 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Brian Haberman (brian@innovationslab.net) is the document shepherd.' added
2011-10-31
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05.txt
2011-07-11
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-04.txt
2011-06-27
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-03.txt
2011-03-14
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-02.txt
2010-12-17
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt
2010-06-17
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-00.txt