Tony Hain wrote:
> Statements in the document like: 'A cellular host SHOULD NOT > perform Duplicate Address Detection ...' or lack of support for IPsec > that is justified as too hard for a small device to implement are > focused on engineering issues for a particular product, not the > architectural minimum. I don't think this was exactly as we wanted to see the document. First, engineering issues are important, but if we would only follow them, why didn't the draft say MUST NOT implement RFCs of over 5 pages ;-) ? Secondly, there are two main classes of engineering issues: those internal to the device and not (so) relevant, and those related to the characteristics of the communications interfaces which typically do need to be addressed in some manner. In any case both examples you cite have NOT been done just in order to save space. Consider the small amount saved by DAD, or the recommendations to implement something equally complicated to IPsec in certain cases. Instead, what we tried to do was to evaluate the specific conditions in cellular networks and devices, and figure out if the function was technically necessary in that context. We may have done our analysis right, or wrong -- and that's the reason we are having this discussion. As an example, it isn't just necessary to show that DAD is expensive, you also have to show that on a particular class of links you don't need it. I seem to recall some discussion today on DAD not being necessary in PPP; I don't know what the conclusion of the discussion will be but that's the kind of result we are looking for - please work with us on the technical analysis. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
