>we might have the following choices (I can't think of other combinations that
>make sense to me):
>1. all are optional
>2. load sharing is mandatory; others are optional
>3. load sharing and router preferences are mandatory; more specific is
>optional
>4. all are mandatory
The current proposal is to split the document and make load sharing
mandatory and router preferences and more specific routes optional. This
is choice 2.
As far as I can tell only one person has objected to this approach and has
suggested choice 3. (perhaps 4).
Are there any other objections to the current proposal?
Bob
p.s.
>But independent of this, if is confusing to have both mandatory and optional
>protocol pieces in the same document if it can be easily avoided.
Me too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
