> And the key thing in my opinion is that the (access) routers > need to implement the faster RA and the advertisement > interval option. Thus the folks that implement routers need > to implement all of ND (as software engineers) but they > probably don't need all of the MIPv6 extensions to ND.
I agree but why do we have to fix this right now. I would argue it can be resolved later and this is something we all knew before now. If we ship the spec and then update it into parts with multiple drafts to PS that will work. But the market needs a PS now and so does technolgy sector in industry. We appease that need and work to make it better or to optimize. That IMO is what PS is all about. What am I missing. P.s. I know you're an implementor and I understand that OK. I agree with you but think about the time when a manager had to tell someone on the team in engineering "look I know we can fine tune this but we got to ship this to the release pool on Monday". That is where I am coming from not disagreeing with your optimizations. Thanks /jim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
