I like Brian's suggestion folks. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:29 AM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: Pekka Savola; IPV6 WG > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-03.txt > > > "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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
