For DNS, I'd like to see a MAY. Some systems simply have no need for DNS.
Turning it into a mandatory requirement, or even a strong SHOULD is to
much. This is a case where if you need it, put it in, if your system
doesn't need it, don't put it in.
As for DHCPv6, in order to have some consistancy with RFC2462 and that
RFC's statements on Stateful Address config, this should probabally be a
SHOULD here. On the otherhand, a MAY with descriptive language clearing up
the ambiguity in RFC2462 would also be suffiicient.
Adam Machalek
<john.loughney@nokia.
com> To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: cc:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Node Requirements issue 8
ng.sun.com>
10/27/2002 06:23 AM
Hi all,
8) Support for DNS (is it a MUST)? Support for DNS discovery / DHCP?
The design team has waviered over DNS. Some say a strong SHOULD is enough,
others say it is a MUST. What does this list feel?
Should some level of DNS discovery / configuration be mandatory if DNS
is used? I guess manual configuration would be a MUST in that case.
The on-going DNS discovery issue still is yet to be completed, but could
we mention something in the draft+
Also, what about DHCPv6? Is it mandatory, if so what are the madatory
components, etc. Should it be mandatory for all types of devices? I think
a SHOULD or MAY, with some detail may be sufficient.
best regards,
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
