Hi Keith,

No argument from me.  Your right.  But not all reqs are needed for all
devices. I do not believe for the current time-to-market needs of
vendors or users for cellular hosts has time to mess around here either.
I also don't think given all the protocol work we have to do that
documenting in our community what is and not needed for each device is a
high priority in fact because of your mail on our list of work or all
the specs the IESG has to read and parse.  Not saying it would not be
nice just two things:  one its not a priority to me, and two: the
authors spec for cellular hosts has time-to-market for IPv6 deployment
and no way are we or can we meet those needs (like right now) and they
should go to the public sector and publish this.

UNLESS: We go back to what informational means as Charlie and I believe
as it used to be?

I doubt that is possible.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:04 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Margaret Wasserman; Hesham Soliman (ERA); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Should DAD be optional? [Was
> draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?] 
> 
> 
> > The IETF specs are not like laws where they can really be enforced. 
> 
> I think most of us understand this already.  However, the IETF specs
> do establish widely-held assumptions for what is needed to allow
> products to interoperate.  Vendors who ship products that 
> violate those
> specs are risking that their products will not harm interoperability.
> Customers can hold those vendors liable for violating the 
> specifications,
> especially if they don't bother to document the violations 
> and/or problems 
> that result.  Admittedly this doesn't happen as often as it should.
> 
> Within IETF, the best we can do is to produce clear 
> guidelines for what
> is expected.  The harm that will result if the expectations 
> are violated 
> is not always possible to document in advance.  Just look at the level
> of denial that's still occuring about the harm that NATs cause.
> 
> Keith
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to