> 3.4. Router Reachability Probing > > When a host avoids using a non-reachable router X and instead uses > another router Y, and the host would have used router X if router X > were reachable, then the host SHOULD probe router X's reachability > by sending a Neighbor Solicitation. A host MUST NOT probe > a router's > reachability in the absence of useful traffic that the host would > have sent to the router if it were reachable. [...] > > ==> I think 'MUST NOT' there is very strict wording. Is it really > necessary to be so? Would SHOULD NOT be sufficient?
Perhaps. I added this in response to the feedback at Minneapolis, where it was clear the earlier wording was misunderstood to mean that probing would happen in the absence of useful traffic; perhaps I over-reacted. Any other opinions on MUST NOT vs SHOULD NOT here? > When a host chooses from multiple equivalent routers, it > MUST choose > randomly. > > ==> Did we settle this SHOULD/MUST debate? I'm not sure if > MUST is best, > but I can deal with that. I would be OK with SHOULD here, but I believe my newly added co-author prefers MUST. > > Routers SHOULD NOT include in a Router Advertisement two Route > Information Options with the same Prefix and Prefix Length > > ==> > s/in a Router Advertisement two Route Information Options/ > two Route Information Options in a Router Advertisement/ ? Then "with the same Prefix and Prefix Length" would be misplaced modifier, no? Thanks, Rich -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
