I vote Strongly for a MAY. This is clearly a case where the
Vendor/Developer in concert with the Customer/User should define what kind
of transition stratagy is desirable for a particular implementation. At
most, a statement that "A system should have some transition stratagy"
would be acceptable. However, I would don't want to see any particular
transition mechanisms specified a SHOULD or MUST.
Adam Machalek
<john.loughney@nokia.
com> To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: cc:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Node Requirements Issue 9
ng.sun.com>
10/27/2002 06:25 AM
Hi all,
9) Are Transition mechanisms mandatory; is support for IPv4 mandatory?
I think that IPv4 is not mandatory, but a strong SHOULD. If IPv4
is supported, then some sort of transition mechanism is madatory -
anyone have suggestions on what should be mandatory? Text suggestions
are helpful.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
