> > as you may have heard during IETF54 IESG plenary panel session, > > i would like to see the above "MUST" removed. there > are large amount > > of IPv6 install base, which supports no HAO, or old > definition of HAO. > > for instance, FreeBSD beyond 4.0 has IPv6 but no > support for HAO. > > MacOS 10.2, JunOS and ExtremeWare do not have HAO > support either. > > suspect they have no HAO support. > > the purpose of a standard is to describe what is necessary > for interoperability > and proper functioning of the protocol, not to legitimize existing > implementations. so the installed base shouldn't dictate > whether a feature > is a MUST in a new version of a standard unless > interoperability with the > installed base is important (it generally is) and imposing > the MUST condition > on implementations that conform with the new version of the > standard affects > interoperability with the installed base.
=> I agree, but as I said earlier, technically removing the must on the HAO makes sense, according to the meaning of the keywords. The BE message is a bit difficult to remove though. I hope than when we discuss this tomorrow we make some distinction between the 2 functions. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
