Yes, that is correct. Something that is a MUST shouldn't just be an
optimization, it should be necessary for correct, interoperable
implementation.
This leaves open whether to make it MAY or SHOULD. By making
it SHOULD, we make a strong statement that it is necessary for
best operation. MAY leaves the case too weak, people will feel
free to ignore it.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 10:27 PM
Subject: Mandating Route Optimization
> Hi Hesham,
>
> > => Not only, but there are also rules for MUSTs and SHOULDs.
> > My understanding is that we only mandate things (MUST) if
> > not doing it will break communication. MIP was designed to
> > make ensure that it works with or without RO. So according
> > to my understanding of the use of keywords, it should not
> > be a must. Of course it is an important feature and therefore
> > SHOULD is appropriate IMHO.
>
> That is my understanding. However, I would like that the SHOULD
> should have teeth to it. What I mean is that we should make
> a strong case on how RO will help hosts, lead to better operation,
> etc.
>
> John
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
