On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:34:58 +0900
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >This looks like a strong draft. Several issues exist though.
> >
> >1) There is no mention of RFC 3041 (privacy enhanced) addresses. Both
> >the issue as to if they should be responded with and if they should be
> >responded to needs to be addressed.
>
> just FYI from implementation POV: KAME implementation does not
> include RFC3041 addresses in the response by default. there's a
> configuration flag bit which makes the responder to include RFC3041
> addresses as well.
>
> i guess that sensible default would be not to include RFC3041 addresses.
Or respond to requests to RFC3041 addresses.
[...]
> >If its not limited to the link local then this protocol should probably
> >be filtered at the edge of the administrative domain.
>
> it is up to administrator of the domain, therefore i think
> recommendation like "SHOULD filter" is too strong. how about
> "may want to filter" or something like that?
Removing the "SHOULD have a default configuration which refuses to
answer queries from global-scope" and replacing that with a
recommendation ("may want to filter") that this protocol be filtered
seems reasonable to me.
mph
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
