On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM, S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote: > > At 10:45 23-06-2014, Julien Laganier wrote: >> >> How about this: >> >> "Router software MUST NOT include any special handling code for >> ORCHIDs. In other words, the non-routability property of ORCHIDs, if >> implemented, is to be implemented via configuration rather than by >> hardwired software code. At this time, it is RECOMMENDED that the >> default router configuration not handle ORCHIDs in any special way. >> In other words, there is no need to touch existing or new routers due >> to ORCHIDs. If such a reason should later appear, for example, due >> to a faulty implementation leaking ORCHIDs to the IP layer, the >> prefix can be and should be blocked by a simple configuration rule such >> as, >> e.g., an Access Control List entry." > > > The first two sentences look fine. I suggest trying to look at the > "recommendation" part as something after the document is published. I am > not thinking clearly enough to suggest text. :-( I would avoid the "should" > in the last sentence.
How about this then: "Router software MUST NOT include any special handling code for ORCHIDs. In other words, the non-routability property of ORCHIDs, if implemented, is to be implemented via configuration rather than by hardwired software code, e.g., the ORCHID prefix can be blocked by a simple configuration rule such as an Access Control List entry." Please let me know if this is Ok so that I can publish an update carrying agreed upon changes. --julien _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
