Michael Thomas wrote:
> 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? That _is_ actually the intention. We tried to formulate section 8.2. (RO requirements) in the MIPv6 draft so that it describes what you have to do to support RO, but not when you have to support it. And we are expecting the node requirements document to say MAY/SHOULD/MUST for the RO feature. I think that's the right place to make the determination. Ok? Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
