Hi Mike, > Vijay Devarapalli writes: > > RO is a SHOULD, it is not a MUST in the current draft. we were > > not talking about route optimization. we were talking about > > processing a HAO. in the current spec HAO MUST be processed but > > not accepted if it cant be verified. verification can be in the > > form of checking for a valid BCE (created securely), IPsec > > protected data session, same trusted domain (where you dont > > expect people to do reflection attacks), the tagging proposal > > from Rajeev and Charlie, smart ingress filtering from Francis > > Dupont, etc... > > Oh, OK. Sorry about that. Still if the code > isn't in the CN, the MN should still be able > to operate correctly, right? That still seems > to me to be a SHOULD rather than a MUST for the > same reasons in my reply to John. > > I guess the long and short of this is that I'm > somewhat skeptical of putting general node > requirements in the MIP draft since it's > probably not the first place one would be > looking to figure out if they were an IPv6 > compliant node. If it's really, really vital > for the health of the net, yadda, yadda, it > would be better to put it in a general v6 node > requirements RFC, don't you think?
Just as an FYI, I replied to the earlier mail because I am trying to sort this out for the node requirements. I think that in MIPv6, it is OK that MIPv6 makes this recommendation (given working group consensus, IESG approval, etc.) but the Node Requirements document is the final word on the issue (assuming WG consensus, IESG approval, etc.). John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
