In fact, there is only one debatable MUST that remains -- at the end of
section 4, the reference to "Rule 2 (prefer appropriate scope) MUST be
implemented and given high priority because it can affect
interoperability." Rule 2 essentially states that one should pick the
lowest scope that it still higher or equal than the destination. There
are plenty of reasons to override that, e.g. different performance of
different interfaces, etc. A SHOULD would be in order.
-- Christian Huitema
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:35 AM
> To: Christian Huitema
> Cc: Francis Dupont; Bob Hinden; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: W.G. Last Call on "Default Address Selection for IPv6"
>
> Christian,
>
> Which MUST in the spec do you feel is inappropriate?
>
> There are only 6 MUST/MUST NOT and as far as I can tell
> they specify constraints that effect interoperability or the protocols
> actually working (e.g. not letting a link local addresses for
> link A be used on as a source address for packets sent on link B).
>
> Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
