"Bound, Jim" wrote: much deleted... ... > My issue is about stateless and stateful being required features within > IPv6 for auto configuration. Both are needed and both are required.
I hope we all agree on this, using lower case. I think we have a genuine problem here in they way RFC 2119 defines SHOULD - it makes it very strong indeed, maybe a bit too strong for this case, whereas MAY is clearly too weak. Maybe indeed we need to qualify the SHOULD, e.g. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration SHOULD be supported, unless all possible use cases for the specific implementation concerned are clearly satisfied by Stateless Address Autoconfiguration. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
