Hi Jim, I agree, I think it is a good compromise.
> I like Brian's suggestion folks. > /jim > > > "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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
