On Friday, May 31, 2002, at 03:31 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:43:50 -0700 > From: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | It doesn't seem right to make them non-compliant (i.e., make RO a > MUST). > > Bob, that's completely bogus as an argument. I don't know enough about > the issues to comment on the substance, but if RO is something that the > WG feels is important for all nodes to implement, then of course MUST is > the right thing. When a new technology solves a critical problem for the operation of the Internet, it make sense to make it a MUST, regardless of the installed base. The issues here are to know if: a) RO solves a critical problem to the operation of the Internet b) RO is the right approach to the problem. If I can be convinced of a), b) is another story. Years ago, the Home Address option was defined and presented as _the_ thing that will solve _the_ problem. Then we discovered that there were security concerns, and a whole new approach, much more complex is now presented. How confident are we that this time, this is the right thing? Has it been tried in large scale environment? Are we sure it solves enough security concerns that another version of RO will not come next year to fix it? As some said early, there are a number of implementations out there today. It is not that it is not possible to change anything at this point, it is that there is a need for a certain level of confidence that RO, as defined today, is the right thing and will not change. - Alain. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
