I agree, after re-reading the formal definitions in RFC 2119. And I don't think we need any discussion text; the implications are already covered in 3041.
The default can be left to the vendor IMHO. Brian Francis Dupont wrote: > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > Should the MAY remain, with some discussion of why 3041 is good or should it > be upgrated to a 'SHOULD be implemented' with reasons why & why not to use it? > > => a SHOULD for implementation and a MAY for use should reach rough > consensus and the debate will be only on the default (3041 or not 3041)? > > Regards > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > PS: I am in favor of "not 3041" but I can't see a reason to prevent > someone to use it. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
