On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Praveen Rajendran wrote:
The node requirements draft has some requirements which "MAY" be supported. However in the absence of some rigidity ( MUST or SHOULD ) these requirements do not convey any information.
A requirement like "IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported." is as good as its absence from the draft altogether.
The draft in its introduction says "Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to implement the mandatory requirements listed in this document."
Should the draft stick to only those reqirements that are essential and steer clear of the others ?? After all it might be tough to capture all optional features in the draft.
I think it's useful to give a summary of all the relevant specifications, whether MAY or not. NodeReqs would then be a useful "reading list" for an implementor.
I agree with Pekka.
Jari
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
