Clarity is mandatory. What text exactly is not clear?
thanks
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> �Hola!
>
> > Compaq implements it the same way.
>
> > But as one author NO this should not go in the spec. It is implementation
> > defined. The only way to force this is to discuss porting assumptions of
> > the market place. That is at best an art and not a science at this point
> > with IPv6. If someone does not do it this way and they are the only one
> > the market will not use their system.
>
> We should convert the art into science, and so the spec should be clear. As
> in telling when is allowed to change IPV6_V6ONLY value, or specifying what
> should happen if it is changed after bind/connect.
>
> Main problem with RFC2553 is that it is too ambiguous. Different
> implementations of the same standard are a Bad Thing, and vague standards
> are so a Bad Thing too. RFC 2553 should be made clearer, not vaguer.
>
> > /jim
> HoraPe
> ---
> Horacio J. Pe�a
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
