>> Please consider the following examples. Are these examples legal?
>And what do you propose against these examples?
my proposal is like below:
- for IPv6 base specification, leave it as is or have more
wording about it (like "whether unspecified address is legal or not
is defined in the upper layer protocol")
- For TCP and UDP, make it illegal. this is to keep practice
from IPv4 days and prevent possible implementation mistakes
(as we inherited TCP and UDP from IPv4).
- for ICMPv6, declare precisely when it is legal and when it is not.
For example, "it is allowed only for DAD".
- home address option should obey whatever RFC2460 says.
- for forwarding case, I'm not sure. what is the scope for ::?
if it is linklocal or interface local (node local), maybe
"beyond scope" icmp6 error.
- for other protocols, up to other protocol specifications.
>The specification should not prohibit anything just because it is not
>considered useful, IMO. An unspecified source address looks harmless
>because we don't use it except DAD.
For RFC2460, I agree.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
