[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Given that MIPv6 will interoperate without binding
> > code in CN's, it looks pretty much like a SHOULD
> > to me. Indeed, the protocol would not be robust if
> > it didn't consider the case of a non-conformant CN.
>
> I think we want to ask is, is it the right thing to do? For
> proper protocol functioning, will this lead to the correct
> behavior. If we think it is important, the MUST is OK. The
> spec does contain a mechanism to support existing implementations
> of IPv6, which means the protocol designers are doing their
> jobs.
I think we're straying into a "good" as in
"good for the overall health of the Internet"
kind of good, rather than a "good" as in will
the protocol operate correctly. For the former,
I think you need to have extremely compelling
motivation, as well as a lot of evidence that
the health of the net will be imperiled if *all*
nodes don't implement a particular function, which
is what is at issue here.
Frankly, I don't think that there is any evidence
that the net would be substantially harmed if RO
wasn't widely implemented and/or enabled. Indeed,
I think there's good reason to believe that many/most
nodes will not enable RO even if their kernel
implements it. In some cases, it's likely to be
a nice and useful optimization, but I really
don't see it as a "if we don't do this the net
will fall apart". As such, SHOULD seems like it
strikes the right balance.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
