>I've been using KAME code since August 1999 when I patched FreeBSD 3.4
>to support IPv6. I think the community owes a great debt to all the
>KAME developers, without whose work we probably wouldn't have as great
>an installed BSD IPv6 base as we do.
>
>So I mean no disrespect to the KAME developers when I say that I think
>you're wrong on objecting to HAO being a MUST. There's no personal
>element involved. I don't think anyone means to downplay the signifi-
>cance of the installed base. It's certainly not the first time that
>a sizable installed code base has been obsoleted by a new feature.
we are not arguing for SHOULD for HAO just because of conformance
(or because "old KAME installations become non-conformant").
we are arguing because we believe MUST for HAO has no technical
requirement (only political), imposes incompatible requirement against
existing documents (2460), and as a result will slow down MIP6
standardization process. i expect AD/IESG pushback if MIP6 gets
submitted with MUST for HAO, and IESG review takes forever due to the
backlogs they have. you will really want to avoid IESG review
roundtrip.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
