Dear list,
this issue is taking much time and ammunition, and it's mostly wasted. We know that
the decision between MUST and SHOULD will be made in the IESG, not here. It all boils
down to interpreting the words of RFC2119.
The make some progress, I'd like to suggest a work plan.
Step 1: someone near to the IESG members asks, if we have an option at all. Even an
unofficial opinion would help.
Step 2: if MUST seems possible, list the reasons for it. A few use cases and pointers
to research reports would be ideal.
Step 3: if the IESG keeps on throwing the book at us, accept SHOULD, but add the
results of step 2 to the draft.
Even SHOULD with the explanations seems acceptable to me ("SHOULD with teeth" said
John Loughney). Good reasons can be more persuasive than plain orders.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
<...>
> I reckon that before IETF last call on any universal IPv6 mandate,
> the mobile-ip working group will have the responsibility to make
> the reasons for the mandate clear.
Excellent! We already have a volunteer for step 2 :-)
-- Lassi
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
