> > 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. > > I agree. I have added the text: > > Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041] > SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that node behavior be configurable > when they are available. >
In the last sentence, did you mean to say that the node should have a configuration knob whether to turn on privacy extension behavior ? If so, would it be clearer to say something like the following ? 'It is recommended that the node be configurable to turn on/off the privacy extension for stateless address autoconfiguration, when it is implemented.' Otherwise, as Alain mentioned, it's up to the application and system-default configuration to use temporary or public address for a connection. We have discussed about possible socket API solution for source address selection on per-socket basis. A draft is in plan for that. -Samita -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
