>>>>> On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:16:11 -0700,
>>>>> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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?
If the load sharing is mandated unconditionally, I think I would make
an objection (I guess I'm not the "only one person"...). I believe we
discussed this before and reached a consensus on this, so I won't
repeat my points (for now).
Perhaps the problem is in wording. My understanding of the MUST is
"if a node implements (some parts of) the draft (which is optional),
it MUST support the load-sharing algorithm". I don't see any
contradiction here.
However, I don't actually care about the 1 or 2 documents issue, as
long as the fact that load-sharing applies to some limited (but
reasonable) environments is clear.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
