> This makes a lot more sense IMHO. How can we write > "MUST NOT use site-local when global addresses are available" > in a spec? I mean how can we enforce that? If we can't enforce > a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" then it shouldn't be in the spec > in the first place.
how can IETF enforce anything it puts in a spec? by that logic we should get rid of all IETF standards, because IETF has no means of enforcing them. surely it's reasonable for IETF standards to establish constraints on the use of IETF standards. if you violate those constraints you can no longer expect to interoperate, and any interoperability failures you cause are your own fault. that's about all it's ever meant to violate an IETF standard, I don't see why this case should be any different. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
